STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

October 29, 1970

Michael V. Braley
States Attorney, Hutchinson County
Parkston, South Dakota 57366

OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 70-48

Responsibility for hospital care furnished to a recipient of Aid to Dependants benefits.

Dear Mr. Braley:

Your office has requested an official opinion on the following statement of facts:

"B", a recipient of Title 19 benefits, on January 13, 1969, entered St. Benedict's Hospital of Parkston, South Dakota for medical treatment. At the time of his entry he exhibited a Title 19 benefits card. He remained at St. Benedict's until July 13, 1969. While there he incurred a bill of $329.28. On making application for Title 19 benefits, St. Benedict's was told that his eligibility for Title 19 benefits was exhausted and that no part of the bill would be paid from Title 19 funds.

The hospital then applied for payment from Moody County. Moody County returned the claims stating "Mr. B transferred to Davison County." Moody County suggests that Davison County was responsible. Davison County refuses to pay on the ground that B first applied in Moody County and so Moody County must accept responsibility.

Records of the Davison County Welfare office at Mitchell reveal that B applied for AD in Moody County on December 16, 1963. He was then 20 years old and lived with his maternal grandparents at Ethan, Davison County, South Dakota.

B lived in Moody County from 1961 until April of 1964. His parents separated in 1961 at which time he went to the home of his maternal grandparents. At the time of their separation, both parents left South Dakota. The mother never returned. The father has not been seen by the maternal grandfather since.

B was born in Howard, South Dakota in 1943. He has never lived outside of the State of South Dakota. He lived in Moody County from 1961 to April of 1964.

An examination of B's welfare records shows he moved about considerably and was off of welfare for a time; that at no time was B off from welfare for more than several months. B had received public aid virtually without interruption since 1963.

Your specific question is:

Since B was a resident of Moody County and attained legal settlement there at the time AD benefits were first paid to him, can Moody County deny responsibility for Mr. B's hospitalization on the grounds that the benefits paid Mr. B were not paid from county funds, but rather paid from state funds?

It affirmatively appears that B did originally establish legal settlement in Moody County.

SDCL 28-13-7 provides:

Every minor whose parents, and every married woman whose husband, has no legal settlement in this state, who shall have resided one year in this state, 90 days in the county, shall there by gain a legal settlement in such county.

His absence from Moody County extended over a period of less than a year on anyone occasion.

SDCL 28-13-13, so far as pertinent hereto, provides:

Any person who is receiving from any source, public assistance poor relief or work upon federal works projects or regular or emergency poor relief of any type, shall have his legal settlement for relief purposes in the county from which he has been assigned to and/or receive public assistance, ... , and such person or persons shall nut lose such poor relief settlement by moving to or residing in any other county for a period of one year after the cessation of receiving such poor relief by himself or members of his family. In the event any such person shall move to another county, the county in which such person or persons have established poor relief settlement shall be responsible for any poor relief that may be furnished by such other county.

Legal settlement continues while receiving public assistance:

See AGR 1953-54, p. 280, AGR 1957-58, p. 6, 153; AGR 1959-60 p. 181-248, AGR 1963-64 p. 327; AGR 1965-66 p. 294.

In the case of Jerauld County v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Company (SD) 71 NW 2d 571, it is said:

In this general duty is included, among other things, the specific duty to provide hospitalization, medical care and treatment. South Dakota Employers Protective Association v. Poage, 65 S.D. 198, 272 N.W. 806. In the acceptance of this duty the county has no choice. It does however have a choice as to the means by which the hospitalization, medical care and treatment are to be provided.

It is my opinion that the responsibility for payment of B's hospital bill lies with Moody County.

Respectfully submitted,

Gordon Mydland
Attorney General