Request By:
Mr. Thomas K. Hall, III
Lee County Attorney
Courthouse
Beattyville, Kentucky
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
The county fiscal court has a problem in connection with providing medical care to county jail prisoners.
Your letter reads in part:
The Lee County Fiscal Court recently experienced a situation in which the Lee County Jailer refused to transport a prisoner, who apparently was in need of medical attention. Although the jailer was requested by the county judge to transport the prisoner he refused to do so stating that the only vehicle he had access to was his private vehicle and, therefore, he would not transport the prisoner.
The Lee County Judge contacted my office and upon being advised of the situation I instructed the Lee County Sheriff's Department to transport the prisoner to medical facilities in Irvine, Kentucky in that I felt said action was necessary to protect the county from potential liability.
It appears that it is the duty of the jailer to transport prisoners when situations such as this arise. However, in light of recent legislation with respect to state and county functions as they pertain to jailers, there seems to be a question as to what authority the county judge has in such situations, as opposed to what action may need to be taken by the Commonwealth.
The first question is: Who is responsible for getting the prisoner to a place where he will receive medical attention?
The jailer has custody and charge of the jail. KRS 71.020. As the custodian, the jailer is required, by KRS 71.040, to treat the prisoners humanely in furnishing them with food and lodging. Under that statute the jailer was (prior to KRS 441.500) required to seek adequate medical attention for prisoners in his custody actually requiring medical attention, including hospitalization. See 72 C.J.S., Prisons, § 11, p. 863. KRS 441.010 contains specific provisions for the payment of necessary medical care of indigent prisoners. The statute does not deal explicitly with the matter of who is responsible for getting the prisoner to medical help. However, implicit in KRS 71.040, prior to the enactment of KRS 441.500, was the concept that the jailer was that instrument of government which must get the prisoner to proper medical authorities and facilities.
Notwithstanding the history of KRS 71.040 and KRS 441.010, the enactment of KRS 441.500 became dispositive of this question, since it embraces the "transportation of jail prisoners as necessary." Thus, since subject prisoners are in the Lee County jail, the sheriff of Lee County, under KRS 441.500(1)(c), is required to transport prisoners needing medical attention to a physician, or surgeon, or hospital for necessary attention and treatment.
However, it is the jailer's responsibility in such cases to contact the Lee County sheriff's office and acquaint that office with the precisely known facts concerning a particular prisoner requiring medical attention.
In our opinion, the jailer's refusal to conduct the transport of such prisoners was valid under the law.
The county judge executive, in this kind of situation, has no authority to enforce the above statutes relating to the relative responsibilities of the jailer, and the sheriff as transporting officer.
The county government, by way of fiscal court, has no authority to enforce the duty statutes referred to above. The state legislature has carved out those responsibilities of the two constitutional officers, i.e., the jailer and sheriff, as mentioned in detail above.
Our analysis is based upon the literal language of the statutes cited; and we believe that our interpretation is practical in terms of carrying out the manifest purposes of those statutes.