Opinion letter to the Honorable R. M. Becker

Jan~.tacy 13, 1970 Honorable R. M. Bee~er Prosecuting Attorney T~ xas County Court Houso Houston, ~U ssourl 65483 Dear ~~. Beeker: Ansi'Jer by letter-Hieler OPINION LETTER NO. 8 This is in r oeoonne to your r eque:3t for an opinion !'rom this o:t"fioe oonecrning the ouest1on whether the cd ty or the county is liable ror t he medical care of a city pri~oner who becomes 1.11 or is injured 1··hil6 being he-ld in the county jail. J\ city pris oner may oe held i n t he coWl-ey j ail under the proviaiona or Section 98.010, RSMo 1959 . Thie section also pro- vides: It . • .such city snall pay t h'3 board of such prisoner at the same rate an may now or here- after be allowed by law to such sherl.ff for the keeping or other prisoners in his custody." (Emphasis added) Section 221.120, RSfilo 1959, provides : urn case any prisoner confined in the jail be sick, and, in the judgment of the jailer, needs a physician or medicine, said jailer shall pro- cure the necessary medicine or medical attention, the costs of which shall be taxed and paid as other costs in criminal cases or the county court may, in their discretion, employ a physi- cian by t he year, to attend said prisoners, and make euch reasonable charge for his service and medicine, when required , to be taxed and col- lected as aforesaid. 11 Honorable R. M. Becker There are no statutory provisions for t he payment of medical expenses of one incarcerated in county jail . Generally if convicted the prisoner himself is responsible for the cost of his imprisonment. Section 221.070, RSMo 1959. These expenses are not coats of pro- secution and therefore cannot be taxed against either the state or the county as costs. See Attorney General Opinion No. 39, issued to Mr. Leben, March 14, 1967 ; Attorney General Opinion No. 31, is- sued to Mr. Hess , January 26, 1965 (copies attached). However, the county court has t he authority to provide for the payment of medical expenses incurred by indigent county jail pri- soners. See Attorney General Opinion No . 133, issued to Richard J. Blanck, May 2, 1968 (copy attached) . In addition, t he city can assume responsibility for the medical expenses of the indigent prisoner under authority of the statutes empouering it to provide for health and welfare. "As a munici pal purpose, poor relief is recognized by our Legislature in the creation or social welf ar e boards and in express grants of authority to all of our cities to care for t he poor .•.• n Jennings v. City of St. Louis ;. 58 S . \·/ . 2d 979, 982 (Mo . en bane 1933). Therefore, it is our opinion that neither the city nor the county can be held responsible for medical expenses incurred by a city prisoner in a county jail, although both t he city and the county can assume responsibility under exi; tinr, health and welfare programs. Enclsoures: Op . No . 39 3 - 14- 6 7 ~ Leben Op. No. 31 1-26-65, Hess On. No . 133 5-2- 68, Blanck Yours very truly, JOHN C. DANFORTH Attorney General -2-