OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

You YOU anti4 arked the opiti 

the tollowi~ quertloMr 

AC&36 3176 providrs in part that tba mxpwultondent ahal3 hat. mvem 

L 

"To *OTB for good tmuoe, wlth 

the oorment it the l rd, aay otrio*r, teaoher or *aplop. 

. . .= 

It I8 to be aoted thet, in the aase of dirohesging oificsrs, teaahere, and emplopesr, the Baar4 and the 
. *.,, 

Bonorable Harry Enox, Chalman, Page 2 

suparintsndent exercieo a joint authority under statute, 

neither uaa sot without the recommendation or consent of 

the other. (See our Opinion Xo. o-1851) But in the cam 

at disabargiag patienta, the Leglalature did not thus olroumorlbe tha authority of the ouperintsndant. Instead, 

it empowered the ouprintendent to w41eoharge patfsntsw, 

without conditioning the exercise of such authority upon 

%he oonaent of the Board.* 

Observing tha language used by the iegialaturo 

in reapeat to the dlaaharge oi ofiicers an4 enployoel by 

the auparinteudent, as compared with that use4 in mapsot 

to the dlmharge of patients by him, we are of oplniou 

that the Leglelature bid not inten that the auperintmdant rust have the pezmlarrlon ot the Board to Uisaharge 

pstlenta. We beliers it aas intended to eohfer upon the 

auperlntandsnt the broad authority to dlsoharge patlent8, 

and that.the power of the Boar4 to 4isoharge patient8 is 

cumulative of that posseseed by the Superintendent, the 

Boerd's power in suoh raspeat being rsatrioted by limit- 

,%ng Ita exeroiae to thoae Faatanoearhere the auperintexndeat reooagends the dlaoharge. 

If reama for~muh eonstruetisn, in4epen4art of 

the language of the statutea, noed be aaalgm4, we think 

It 18 found %a the nature oi the polar to be exemieed. 

The 8uperlntendent of the Institution is requlrad to be 

a ukllled physlolan expemlanoe4 in the treatment of in6anity. ArtSole 3104. Whether a patltmt la to ba dimoharged must be deteraiaed by all appraisal af hi8 phyeloal 

aad rental aohdltfon, wlth due regard ior hLe omn Welfare 

and that or the pub$io. This ia au issue whloh oan beresolved eSrrotire3y only fraa person&l obeervation of ti,e 

patient by a skilled phyaloian experieneed~ln the dia&&.s 

and treatamnt of laental diseases. In the absenoe or language 

requiring auoh couatruction, we are not prepared to hold 

that the Leglalcture latsnded that the jWrguent of the 

superintendent in respect to this matter PhouM be raviewed by the libard, rhoae manifo'%d duties do not penuit 

or personal obaertation of PatientAt, an4 whose aelabebs are 

not required to poseesa~the qualifioations neceeaary to 
zWnorabl@ 

detur8it.M ths queatfoa involved. 

Page S 

That the Lcrglalature lnte$ed the power to dls- _ - _ . . _ _ . . . 

axas pctientn to be 0xeroiaea uy tne superintenaenc without prior peraiasion or approval of the Board Is rurthrr 

~~i40~ti~od by the polloy sxpreaaed la ArtIsle 51931, Yurnon'a 

?&via04 Civil Statutes, dloh expreaaly mmmlta to the 

8up.rintwmlt alow the deolalon upon thm qua8tlon 0r alla*iag Wtes to Lea*0 ths lnatltutlon for temporary per- 

:@a of absqnee not exoeeding twelve months, dth additlonel 

ls0re of abasme at,the expiration of such period to be 

gtmwd *by the auperintakdant or upon his ~ooamn4atlOn". 

~$0 l ufflslsat rsaaon appsara why the Lyllsleture w0ul4 have 

aonierretl upon the aupalntendent tha mad p-ax to allturapora~ abeenoes wlnithout requiring the o0lylsnt ci th0 

Board themto, while r@quLting th0 koard*a aoneent to a 

diaebfwge. 

Your question aa to vrhothar,the auperint0udsut 

say #aohargu a patient without pwmleaIon at the War4 

la thersto?e aaswered la the sfiimatlra. You aak04 whether 

the superintendent may dtaahargo a patient *arbitrarily*. 

Ir y0usasan to inquire whether the Legislature inteabed 

that t&e rQgsrint8ndent should. exeralae en unbrl4le4 dlawetion to Qiaeh%rge a patient without regard to hispbyaiti or matal oamlttion, the w&far6 of tha patient 

and tJmf or the pubU6, ~8 rower that n0 auoh paer w&a 

intanded to be ooaferreQ. Tim atatute oonteuplatee that 

the auperintem4ent6 shall be vsstea'wlth 4laoretlon to dst6aPine rhather the ooadltlon ci the patlbnt la aucrh that 

dth due regard for his welfars and that QS the publlo he 

may be diaoharged from the lnatltutlon. I8 I* lntendsd 

that thla dlaoretlon will be exercised masonab~y, rather 

thaa arbitrarily. &?we*or, aa In the-aaaa oi every publla 

offher to whom the s*erolse oi aa oflfciel dlaontlon la 

oonffded, tbera alwaylr axlate the parer In the offloOzS 

though hot the right, to de&de aron~ es Nell es tight. 

Rhere a dlaoretioa ia eoniided to a publics ofrioer,~ it ia 

pooslble that he may abuse it. '%at he ray abuse It, however, 

doas not argue agalhat the axlatenoe 0f the authority. &hers 

the deetaion ot tho offloer ia final, as here, the re15s4y 

for abuse of dlaarstion, or arbltrarr action, la retmml t?f 

the otfsndtng otflaer. 
A oourt or4er la not a oomlition preoeUant to 

the Qiaahargo of a patient by th6 #uporiatendmL Ho 8tatate that we ham boon able to find maker it M. ?he oomn&Want of a ptlant is not for pumlabwnt, but for trrtAmt. Thr order of 60uitmAt Uosa Aot prsaribo-lndmd, 

tbo oo\Ut ia sot uymereU to 4ete~n~t-the PWSDA 

8lpga aonfilud In tha IrUtitutlon SOS a dafialto period 

The parloU o? aoaflnumat hbgss upolr tba phy8faal 

l a U & a l Oo lr ditloof A th a patleat~ to the 6UQWiAtsadafit 

of the ia&itation, a8 noted abole, i8 aoAmStlW b7 mtatute 

the power of aisohargm when, in hi8 opinion,. the aondithn 

of the patient warranty ,it.