September 18, 1975 

The Honorable John Lawhon 

District and County Attorney 

Denton County 

P. 0. Box 44 

Denton, Texas 76201 

Opinion No. H- 695 

Re: Whether a county may 

pay the director of its public 

health district a salary plus 

fees for certain other services. 

Dear Mr. Lawhon: 

You have requested our opinion concerning the following questions: 

(1) May a county pay the director of its public health 

district a salary of $12, 000. 00 per year and also 

pay that director or other member of his medical 

firm $275. 00 per autopsy that he or a member of his 

medlcal firm performs? 

(2) May a county pay that director of his medical firm 

additional fees for laboratory services performed 

by them? 

(3) May the health unit purchase drugs and other supplies 

from that director or his firm? 

You explain that t~he director and ot.her members of his firm are the 

only practicing patho:logists in your county. Article 4447a, V. T. C. S. , 

provides statutory authorization for t,he formation of a health district. 

Section 6 provides that the authority vested in the county health officer may 

be transferred to the director of a health d,istrict. Section 5(b) provides that 

the director “shall be compensated in accordance with the terms of the agreement under which the dlst~rict is formed. ” The agreement in this instance 

provides for the compensation of the director Tao be specified in the annual budget. 

I‘hus. the additional amount. if any. the director of the public health district 

would receive for performing an autopsy would be determined in the annual budget. 

Art~c.lc, 49. 0’3. Cocl~: of Crimin;lI Procedure, provides guidance as to the maximum 

fee p<:r ,g,utopsy which can be paid. 

p. 301s 
,‘. , 

Your second and third questions concern cont.racts between a health 

district and the director or his medlcal firm for laboratory services, drugs, 

and other supplies not used in connection with an autopsy. You explain that 

the director’s firm is the only firm performing the required laboratory services 

in your county. 

In Attorney General Opinion M-340 (1969) it was concluded that: 

. . . It is contrary to public policy for a physician, 

a member of a Board of Trustees of a community 

center to receive compensation for patient. referral 

from the center. 

. . . 

It is contrary t,o public policy of this State for 

a member of a Board of Trustees of a community 

center to be a member of a Board of Trustees and 

a stockholder of corporations cont,racting with the 

community center. 

This determination was in reliance upon Meyers v. Walker, 276 S. W. 305, 307 

(Tex. Civ.App. --Eastland 1925, no writ) in which it was held that: 

If a public official directly or indirectly 

has a pecuniary interest in a contract, no 

matter how honest he may be, and al~though he 

may not be influenced by the interest, such a 

contract so made is violative of the spirit and 

letter of our law, and is against public policy. 

See Attorney General Opinions H-638 (1975), ‘WW-1241 (1962). V-640 (1948), 

v-381 (1947). Accordingly, in our opinion any contract. express or implied, 

between the director of a health district and a medical firm of which he is a 

member is against pu’blic policy and should not be entered into. 

SUMMAR’Y 

Where aut.horized by the agreement forming 

the public health district, the director of a district 

may receive rompensat ion in addit ion t:o his regular 

salary for the performance of.a properly authorized 

autopsy. 

p. 3016 
A contract between the director of a health 

district and a medical firm of which he is a 

member is against public policy. 

Attorney General of Texas 

Opinion Committee 

jad: 

p. 3017