STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
September 16, 1975
Mr. Rick A. Yarnall
Deputy Director
Board of Charities and Corrections
State Capitol Building
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 75-159
SDCL 27-16, Costs for care and maintenance at Redfield State Hospital and School and Custer State Hospital
Dear Mr. Yarnall:
You have requested an official opinion from this office regarding SDCL 27-16 and the confusion relating to the proper interpretation of the billing procedure to be followed by the Board under the Act.
You point out in your letter that there are two possible alternative interpretations of the proper billing procedure. The first of these interpretations would allow the county, under SDCL 27-16-34, to collect up to $100.00 from a responsible relative who had been predetermined by the Board of Charities and Corrections to pay less than this amount. The second interpretation that you point out would require the institution to send a statement to each county auditor who would in turn bill the respective responsible relative, but would not allow the county, under SDCL 27-16-34 to collect up to $100.00 from a responsible relative predetermined to be unable to pay $100.00 or less per month.
The language of SDCL 27-16-34 is the language which is causing the confusion. SDCL 27-16-34 provides:
Each county auditor shall, upon receipt of a statement from an administrator of a facility requiring payment for the care of patients therein, notify those legally bound for the support of such patients, and require them to make payments to the county treasurer for such care. When such payment is made, a receipt therefor in triplicate shall be issued. One copy of such receipt shall be filed with the county auditor, who shall give proper credit for the same.
The notification by the county auditor to those legally bound for the support of patients shall also include a summary of the procedure to appeal the amount they are charged as provided in Section 27-16-17.
SDCL 27-16-17 provides that the Board of Charities and Corrections or its designee shall determine the financial ability of the patient or a responsible relative. Patients who are judged by the Board of Charities and Corrections as able to pay the full per diem rate are to be charged the full per diem rate for each day of continuous patient status. (SDCL 27-16-19.) SDCL 27-16-14 provides that the liability of a legally responsible relative ceases when the resident attains his eighteenth birthday and all prior payments assessed to the responsible relative have been paid. SDCL 27-16-24 provides that if the charge against the patient or responsible relative is less than $100.00 per month, the county of residence of the resident shall be charged with the difference between the applicable charge against the patient or responsible relative and $100.00 for each month of patient's status. To interpret SDCL 27-16-34 in a way which would allow the county to then bill the patient or responsible relative for the county contribution, would in my opinion be contrary to the legislative intent expressed throughout SDCL 27-16. Consequently, it is my opinion that the second interpretation discussed above is the proper one to be followed in implementing SDCL 27-16.
SDCL 27-16-34 therefore should be interpreted in such a way that when the institution sends a statement to each county auditor with the list of charges for all resident patients of the county, the auditor would then bill the respective relative or patient the amount which the Board of Charities and Corrections has determined the patient or responsible relative can pay. The county would also then submit its proper required contribution. The county would not, however, be permitted to seek restitution from the patient or responsible relative for the monies the county had paid under SDCL 27-16-24 and 27-16-35.
Respectfully submitted,
William Janklow
Attorney General
WJJ:DOC:dk
