### ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT

May 27,2003

The Honorable Kevin Bailey Chair, Cornmittee on General Investigating Texas House of Representatives P.O. Box 2910 Austin, Texas 78768-2910 Opinion No. GA-0076
Re: Whether aschool district may voluntarily pay the medical expenses and travel costs for astudent injured in school or during a school activity (RQ-0007-GA)
Dear Representative Bailey:
Your predecessor as Chair ofthe House Committee on General Investigating asked whether state law prohibits an independent school district from voluntarily paying for a student’s medical expenses and travel costs related to an injury sustained by the student while in school or involved in a school activity.’ 

### Background
These questions arise in connection with the h-aan-Sheffield Independent School District’s expenditures for treating an injury sustained by ahigh school student during the 2001-2002 school year.2 See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1. The request letter states that the student was injured in awood shop class when her hand was caught under aboard on asanding machine, badly injuring two fingers. See id. She was stabilized atthe local emergency room and sent to Midland for further treatment. See id. The attending physician in Midland recommended transfer to a specialist in Dallas, and the student and her mother were flown to Dallas at district expense. See id. Following surgery, which restored the use of her injured fingers, the student had to return for follow-up examinations and physical therapy. See id. The district provides an accident insurance policy for all students and has not been billed for any medical expenses related to this incident, but it paid transportation costs for the visits. See id. at 2. The school nurse accompanied the student on some occasions because the parents had limited ability to speak English. See id. at 1.

‘Letter from the Honorable Pete P. Gallego, Chair, House Committee on General Investigating, Texas House of Representatives, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General, at 1 (Dec. 4, 2002) (on tile with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter Request Letter].

2The Iraan-Sheffield Independent School District is located in Pecos County, Texas. See Education, Pecos County, Texas, available at http://www.co.pecos.tx.us/ed.html.The Honorable Kevin Bailey - Page 2 (GA-0076)

“While the Iraan-Sheffield Independent School District was under no legal obligation to pay these costs, school trustees felt amoral obligation to assist a student in their jurisdiction and under their care.” Id. at 2. In August 2002, the school trustees voted to discontinue paying further travel expenses for the student out ofconcern for the legality ofproviding transportation and expenses for students injured at school or school-related activities. See id. We arenot asked toreview the school board’s expenditures in this matter but to address the following general questions about school district expenditures on behalf of injured students:

Does state law prohibit an independent school district from voluntarily paying for medical expenses and travel costs related to an injury suffered by astudent while the student isin school or involved in a school activity?
Does any such prohibition extend to acoach or trainer transporting a student to and from surgery, follow-up visits, and physical therapy related to an injury in an athletic activity?
Does any such prohibition extend to the provision ofvarious related services provided by the school district through campus clinics, school nurses, and/or athletic trainers?
Do any of the acts described above constitute a “gift” of taxpayer funds prohibited by law? Id.3 Our answers are limited to school districts and do not apply to state agencies or other governmental entities. 

### II. LeealBackwound
The school district isprotected by sovereign immunity from liability forthe student’s medical costs and other damages resulting from the injury. Unless waived, sovereign immunity protects the state and its subdivisions from both suit and liability for damages. See Tex. Dep ‘tof Tramp. v. Jones, 8S.W.3d 636,638 (Tex. 1999). The Texas Tort Claims Act, TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM. CODE ANN. ch. 101 (Vernon 1997 & Supp. 2003), provides for governmental liability in tort and waives sovereign immunity to the extent stated in its provisions. See TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODEANN. $6 101.02 1, 101.025 (Vernon 1997). However, the Tort Claims Act does not waive sovereign immunity for school districts “[elxcept as to motor vehicles.” Id. 9 101.05 1. Furthermore, school teachers and other professional school district employees are not personally liable for an act within the scope ofthe employee’s duties that involves the exercise ofjudgment or discretion, with narrow exceptions. See TEX. EDUC.CODEANN. 822.051,22.051(c) (Vernon 1996); Downing v. Brown,

31n answering the questions, we do not address a school district’s responsibility to provide health-related services to disabled students under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. $8 1400-1461 (2000), or Texas Education Code, sections 29.001-.017.The Honorable Kevin Bailey - Page 3 (GA-0076)

935 S.W.2d 112 (Tex. 1996). Thus, with rare exceptions, neither a school district nor a teacher would be liable for damages for an injury sustained by a student during a classroom activity. Article III, section 52(a) ofthe Texas Constitution provides that “the Legislature shall have no power to authorize any county, city, town orother political corporation or subdivision ofthe State to lend its credit orto grant public money orthing ofvalue in aid of, orto any individual, association or corporation.” TEX. CONST. art. III, 452(a); see also id. art. III, §51(legislature has no power to authorize the making of any grant ofpublic money to any individual). When agovernmental entity is not liable on aclaim, the payment ofthat claim constitutes “apure gift or donation” and violates the constitution. Tompkins v. Williams, 62 S.W.2d 70, 71 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1933, judgm’t adopted); accord State v. City ofAustin, 331S.W.2d 737,742 (Tex. 1960); see also Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0062 (2003) at2 (school district’s payment ofnon-prevailing party’s attorneys’ fees is agratuitous donation ofpublic funds). The constitutional prohibition against donating public funds to private individuals does not prevent governmental entities from using public funds to carry out their public purposes. See City ofAustin, 33 1 S.W.2d at 743. Despite a school district’s immunity from damages under the Tort Claims Act, a school board may, under other authority, make reasonable provisions for an injured student’s care. The legislature and the courts have long recognized a school district’s interest in protecting and providing for the health and safety of students under their supervision. See Moseley v. City ofDallas, 17 S.W.2d 36 (Tex. Comm’n. App. 1929,judgm’t adopted) (because physical condition was relevant to a student’s ability to learn, school board could establish and maintain a school health department to provide physical examinations to students); TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. 8921.002(a) (Vemon 1996) (employment ofschool nurses), 33.085 (Vernon Supp. 2003) (purchase ofinsurance policy to fund medical treatment for students injured at school), 33.086 (Vernon Supp. 2003) (head coach or chief sponsor for an extracurricular athletic activity, including cheerleading, must be certified in first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation). School districts have also established school-based clinics or health centers where students may receive primary health services.4 Legislation adopted in 1999 authorizes school districts to provide health care services to students and their families through a school-based health center and provides a grant program for qualifying centers. See TEX. EDUC.CODE ANN. $5 38.051-.064 (Vernon Supp. 2003)? Section 33.085 ofthe Education Code authorizes the board oftrustees of a school district to “obtain insurance against bodily injuries sustained by students while training for or engaging in interschool athletic competition or while engaging in school-sponsored activities on a school campus.” Id. 8 33.085(a). This provision further states that

4SeeT~~~F~~~~~~S~~~~~H~~~~~S~~VI~~~,RE~~~~~~~~~S~~TEB~~RD~~H~~~~~, “ExtendedSchool Health Services,” (Apr. 1998) available athtt&/www.tdh.state.tx.us/schoolhealtWtf gb.htm(lastvisitedMay 14,2003).

‘See Act ofMay 26, 1999,76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1418, $ 1, 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 4847,4847-49, renumbered by Act of May 22, 2001,77th Leg., R.S., ch. 1420, 54.005,2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 4210,4218-21.The Honorable Kevin Bailey - Page 4 (GA-0076)

(b)The amount ofinsurance tobe obtained must be in keeping with the financial condition ofthe school district and may not exceed the amount that, in the opinion of the board of trustees, is reasonably necessary to afford adequate medical treatment of injured students. (c) The insurance authorized by this section must be obtained from areliable insurance company authorized to do business in this state and must be on forms approved by the commissioner of insurance. (d) The cost ofthe insurance is alegitimate part ofthe total cost of operating the school district. (e) The failure of any board of trustees to carry the insurance authorized by this section may not be construed asplacing any legal liability on the school district orits officers, agents, or employees for any injury that results.
Id. 0 33.085(b)-(e). This statute reflects the school district’s interest in restoring an injured student’s fitness to attend school and to participate in athletic contests and other extracurricular activities, an interest served by funding the student’s medical treatment. As adopted in 1959, the predecessor of section 33.085 related only to insurance for participation in athletics. See Act ofApr. 16, 1959’56th Leg., R.S., ch. 124’1959 Tex. Gen. Laws 215. A 2001 amendment to section 33.085, however, allowed the school board to obtain insurance “not only against bodily injuries sustained by students engaged in athletics, but also in other school-sponsored activities on a school campus.” HOUSERESEARCH ORGANIZATION,

BILLANALYSIS, Tex. H-B. 2301, 77th Leg., R.S. (2001). Section 33.085 applies to classroom activities, asdemonstrated by abill analysis referring to the explosion of ahigh school chemistry lab where several students were badly burned, including one whose parent had no insurance. See id. Pursuant to this provision, a school district may purchase insurance to pay a student’s medical costs for an injury sustained at school or while involved in a school activity.
A school board may also pay transportation costs incidental to providing medical care to a student. Education Code, section 45.105(c) authorizes a school district board of trustees to spend local school funds for various purposes, including “other purposes necessary in the conduct of the public schools determined by the board oftrustees.” TEX. EDUC.CODEANN. 845.105(c) (Vernon Supp. 2003); seealsoid. 8 11.151(b)(V emon 1996) (school board authority to “govern and oversee the management of the public schools of the district”). School boards have wide latitude to determine what expenditures are “necessary” for public schools and thus within the spending authority ofEducation Code, section 45.105(c), and itspredecessor, former Education Code, section 20.48. See, e.g., City ofGarland v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 468 S.W.2d 110, 11l- 12 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 197 1,writ ref dn.r.e.) (trustees could determine whether expenditure forpaving streets abutting school property was “necessary in the conduct ofthe public schools”); Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. JC-0165 (2000) at 10(trustees could determine that expenditure for “early exit” retirement planThe Honorable Kevin Bailey - Page 5 (GA-0076)

was necessary); JM-1265 (1990) at 4 (trustees might find college scholarships to be “necessary in the conduct of the public schools”); H-l 33 (1973) at 5, 7 (trustees could determine that trustees’ travel and legal expenses were “necessary”); C-601 (1966) at 3-4 (trustees have discretion to determine whether expending surplus money from operation of school cafeteria to provide lunches to needy pupils is “necessary cost in the efficient conduct of its public schools”). A school board may pay travel costs ancillary toproviding medical care for aninjured student ifitdeterrnines, inthe exercise ofreasonable discretion, that these expenditures are necessary in the conduct ofthe public schools. The district’s determination is subject tojudicial review. See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. JC-0165 (2000) at 11; H-133 (1973) at 4.
III. Specific Questions
We address the specific questions. A. Question One
We are first asked whether state law prohibits a school district from voluntarily paying medical expenses and travel costs related to an injury sustained by astudent while in school orinvolved in aschool activity. As stated above, Texas statutes do not prohibit aschool district from voluntarily paying medical expenses and travel costs for students injured at school or in a schoolrelated activity. Section 33.085 expressly authorizes a school board to purchase insurance. The school board may pay reasonable travel expenses related to treating student injuries sustained at school or during a school activity, ifthe board determines that the expenditure is necessary in the conduct of the public schools.
B. Question Two The next question is whether acoach or trainer may transport a student to and from surgery, follow-up visits, and physical therapy related to an athletic injury. The request letter states that school districts routinely furnish transportation in these cases. See Request Letter, supra note 1,at 2. A school district may authorize coaches and trainers to provide such transportation as ajob responsibility ifthe board determines that this activity promotes an objective of the school district and that it is appropriate to acoach ortrainer’s job description. A coach ortrainer may also provide transportation on his or’her own time without using school district resources. The school board and the coach or trainer should be aware of other applicable statutes. For example, school districts are subject to the Tort Claims Act “asto motor vehicles.” Id. Statutes orboard rules requiring parental consent may also apply. Seegenerally Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. DM-378 (1996) at2-3 &n.4 (issues relating to transportation ofpublic school students inprivately-owned vehicles operated by parents and teachers). 

## c. Question Three
We are next asked whether state law prohibits a district from providing various related services through campus clinics, school nurses, and/or athletic trainers. We answer thisThe Honorable Kevin Bailey - Page 6 (GA-0076)

question generally, because the related services required in connection with a student’s injury will depend on the nature of the injury. The board oftrustees may provide “related services” to injured students ifitdetermines that these services are necessary inthe conduct ofthe public schools. Other statutes are relevant to providing services through school nurses and athletic trainers. Licensed health professionals may provide professional services only within the terms ofthe practitioner’s act. See, e.g., TEX. OCC. CODEANN. chs. 301 (Vernon 2003) (Nursing Practice Act), 451 (athletic trainers); see also TEX. EDUC.CODEANN. fj 21.003(b) (Vemon 1996) (school district may not employ a person as an audiologist, physician, nurse, school psychologist, or certain other professionals unless the person holds the applicable state license). Questions about the health care services that a campus clinic or school-based health center provides to students must be addressed to the specific clinic or school-based health center. D. Question Four
We are finally asked whether aschool district’s voluntary provision of such services constitutes a “gift” of taxpayer funds prohibited by law, a question relevant to the expenditures discussed in the first three questions. Under Texas Constitution, article III, section 52(a), the legislature may not authorize a political corporation, including a school district, to grant public money or anything of value to an individual. See TEX. CONST.art. III, 4 52(a); see also id. art.III, 8 51 (legislature has no power to authorize the grant of public money to any individual). This constitutional provision prevents the gratuitous grant ofpublic funds for private purposes. See Byrd v. City ofDallas, 6 S.W.2d 738,740 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1928,judgm’t adopted); Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0062 (2003). An expenditure ofpublic funds for apublic purpose isnot, however, an unconstitutional grant ofpublic funds. See Tex.Mun. League Intergovernmental Risk Pool v. Tex. Workers ’Comp. Comm ‘n,74 S.W.3d 377,383 (Tex. 2002); Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v.Meno, 917 S.W.2d 717,740 (Tex. 1995). An expenditure to accomplish apublic purpose is constitutional even though itincidentally benefits aprivate interest. SeeByrd, 6S.W.2d at740; Graves v.MoraZes, 923 S.W.2d 754, 757 (Tex. App.-Austin 1996, writ denied).
A school board may pay for its students’ medical expenses, incidental travel, and other incidental services related to an injury sustained at school only ifthe expenditure accomplishes a public purpose. The Texas Supreme Court has stated the following three-part test to determine if a statute accomplishes apublic purpose:

[T]he Legislature must: (1) ensure that the statute’s predominant purpose is to accomplish a public purpose, not to benefit private parties; (2) retain public control over the funds to ensure that the public purpose isaccomplished and toprotect the public’s investment; and (3) ensure that the political subdivision receives areturn benefit.
Tex.Mun. League Intergovernmental Risk Pool, 74 S.W.3d at384. This test also applies to political subdivisions exercising delegated legislative powers. See Tex. Att’yGen. Op. Nos. JC-02 12(2000) at 3-4; JC-0113(1999) at 2; DM-256 (1993) at 2-3.The Honorable Kevin Bailey - Page 7 (GA-0076)

The school district’s payment for student medical expenses related to an injury sustained while in school or involved in a school activity will not constitute a gift ofpublic mnds prohibited by article III, section 52 if the school board (1) determines that the expenditure’s predominant purpose isto accomplish apublic purpose, not tobenefit private parties, (2)retains sufficient control over the expenditure to ensure that the public purpose is accomplished, and (3) ensures that the school district receives areturn benefit. When the school board applies this test to its expenditures for ancillary services, such as transportation to physical therapy sessions, it must consider whether these primarily benefit the school district orthe individual. The school district must place sufficient controls on the expenditure to ensure that itspublic purpose isaccomplished. Contractual terms may provide sufficient control of some expenditures. See Key v. Comm ‘rsCt. ofMarion County, 727, S.W.2d 667,669 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1987, no writ). Controls such as application requirements and limits on travel expenditures may be established by the board’s exercise ofrule-making power. See TEX. EDUC.CODEANN. 5 11.15 1(d) (Vernon 1996). The return benefit received by the school district need not be monetary, but instead may be accomplishing the school district’s public purpose. Whether a particular school board action complies with the constitution raises fact questions that cannot be addressed in an attorney general opinion. See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. GA-0061 (2003) at 9; GA-0003 (2002) at 1n.2; M-l 87 (1968) at 3.The Honorable Kevin Bailey - Page 8 (GA-0076)

SUMMARY Section 33.085 of the Education Code authorizes a school district to purchase an insurance policy to cover a student’s medical expenses for bodily injuries sustained in connection with interschool athletics orwhile engaging in school-sponsored activities on campus. A school district may pay medical costs and incidental travel costs for a student injured at school or in connection with a school activity if the school board determines that the expenditure is necessary in the conduct of the public schools.
The district’s payment of travel costs will not constitute an unconstitutional gift of public funds to an individual if the school board (1) determines that the expenditure’s predominant purpose is to accomplish a public purpose, not to benefit private parties, (2) retains sufficient control over the expenditure to ensure that the public purpose is accomplished, and (3) ensures that the school district receives areturn benefit. Very truly yours,

BARRY R. MCBEE First Assistant Attorney General
DON R. WILLETT Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
NANCY S. FULLER Chair, Opinion Committee
Susan L. Garrison Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee