June 7, 1986
Brad Randall, M.D.
Minnehaha County Coroner
Laboratory of Clinical Medicine
1212 South Euclid Avenue
Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57105
Official Opinion No. 86-25
County coroners
Dear Mr. Randall:
You have requested an Official Opinion from this Office in regard to the following factual situation:
FACTS:
In my position as Minnehaha County Coroner, I have had occasion to encounter difficulty with individuals properly notifying this office that a death has occurred when the circumstances surrounding the death would require an investigation by the coroner's office. In one particular instance, a local hospital has maintained that they were under no legal obligation to notify the coroner in the case of an accidental death. In fact, they had apparently been advised by their legal staff that the coroner should not be notified.
In addition, I have encountered some disagreement with the South Dakota Department of Health concerning the appropriate certifier of a death certificate. Recently, I requested the opportunity to amend a death certificate on an individual whose death was investigated by the coroner's office. The health department felt that the death certificate had already been appropriately certified by the attending physician (individual had survived for a period of time in the hospital and thus had acquired an attending physician). Therefore, I was not allowed to so amend the certificate.
Based upon the above factual situation, you have asked the following questions:
QUESTIONS:
1. Is an individual and/or institution obligated to notify the coroner that a death has occurred when the circumstances surrounding that death would require investigation by the county coroner's office?
2. Who has the proper authority, as between the county coroner and the attending physician, to sign the death certificate?
IN RE QUESTION NO. 1:
With regard to your question concerning the obligation of an individual and/or institution to notify the coroner that a death has occurred, when the circumstances surrounding the death would require investigation by the county coroner's office, it must be noted that the law imposes no express duty upon an individual to notify the coroner of such death. Notwithstanding that fact, I feel that the duty to do so nevertheless exists. This position devolves upon the well established principle that in construing statutes, a construction should be avoided which will frustrate or defeat the object of the statute. See City of Sioux Falls v. State Board of Equalization, 203 N.W.2d 419 (S.D. 1973).
The most pertinent statute regarding this issue appears to be SDCL 23-14-18 which provides that:
The county coroner shall investigate any human death if a determination of the cause and manner of death is in the public interest. Nothing in the provisions of this section, § 23-14-9.1, § 23-14-19, § 23-14-20, § 34-26-2, § 34-26-5, or § 34-26-14 may be deemed to supersede the obligation of any county sheriff to pursue and apprehend all felons pursuant to § 7-12-1. Deaths which are in the public interest, without limitation, are:
(1) All deaths by unnatural means or if there is a suspicion of unnatural means, including all deaths of accidental, homicidal, suicidal and undetermined manner, regardless of suspected criminal involvement in the death;
(2) All deaths where the identity of the victim is unknown or the body is unclaimed;
(3) All deaths of inmates of any state, county or municipally operated correctional facility, mental institution or special school;
(4) All deaths believed to represent a public health hazard;
(5) At the discretion of the coroner, all deaths of children under two years of age resulting from an unknown cause or if the circumstances surrounding the death indicate that sudden infant death syndrome may be the cause of death; and
(6) All natural deaths if the decedent is not under the care of a physician or if the decedent's physician does not feel qualified to sign the death certificate. However, the lack of an attending physician may not be construed to permit an investigation or autopsy solely because the decedent was under treatment by prayer or spiritual means alone in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination.
This statute presupposes that notification of any such death covered therein be given to the county coroner. It is difficult to envision how the coroner could exercise the investigative powers given him by said statute absent his being notified that such a death has occurred.
This position would seem to be further buttressed by SDCL 23‑14‑19. That statute provides that:
As to any death, the cause and manner of which is in the public interest, the county coroner and law enforcement agency exercising investigative control over such death shall jointly take charge of and exercise complete control over all dead bodies and all effects affixed thereto to determine the physiological cause of death. The investigating law enforcement officers, including the state's attorney or Attorney General shall have control over all other elements of evidence demonstrating a potential criminal circumstance of death. No dead body subject to control by the coroner having investigative control may be moved from the scene of death without the coroner's permission unless the body directly obstructs a public transportation right-of-way or poses a immediate health hazard. No dead body subject to coroner control under this section may be embalmed without the express authority of the investigating coroner. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
This statute, in providing that 'no dead body subject to control by the coroner having investigative control may be moved from the scene of death without the coroner's permission,' does seem to provide for notification of the county coroner. I would construe this 'subject to control by the coroner' as including all those instances wherein the coroner would have investigative authority under SDCL 23-14-18. The body would therefore be subject to control by the coroner and he would have to be notified prior to its removal from the scene of death. Therefore, may answer to your first question is yes.
IN RE QUESTION NO. 2:
As to your second question concerning who has the proper authority, as between the county coroner and the attending physician, SDCL 23-14-20 provides that:
The county coroner shall prepare a medical certificate in conformance with chapter 34-25 for all deaths over which he assumes jurisdiction.
While there does seem to be some conflict between this statute and SDCL 34-25-18 (providing that the licensed physician, if any, last in attendance for any person whose death occurs in this state, shall make and sign a medical certificate within twenty-four (24) hours after death), I feel that SDCL 23-14-20 would take precedence in that, as a general rule on statutory construction, when there is a specific enactment, that provision prevails over the terms of a general enactment. See Hartpence v. Youth Forestry Camp, 325 N.W.2d 292 (S.D. 1982). Furthermore, SDCL 23-14-20 must be accorded more weight, it being the more recent legislative enactment.
Therefore, in answer to your second question, it is my opinion that in those cases in which the coroner assumes jurisdiction, he shall prepare the death certificate, rather than any attending physician. As such, the county coroner, who has investigated the death, should be afforded the opportunity to seek an amendment of the death certificate or to somehow otherwise have the records reflect that he is in disagreement with the certificate as prepared by the attending physician.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark V. Meierhenry
Attorney General
