Court Opinion

ID: 9656711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:57:04.867652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:34.799372
License: Public Domain

GRAVES, Justice,
Dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion on several grounds. First, I do not believe the Harlan County Jailer was under any statutory obligation to seek indigency determinations for inmates needing medical care. Second, the remedy sought does not redress the alleged harm, and other statutory safeguards obviate the need for a writ of mandamus in this case. Finally, the remedy granted by the majority is vague and unworkable. As such, I would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
A.
As the majority points out, this case turns on the issue of duty. Specifically, the pivotal issue concerns whether the Harlan County Jailer was under statutory obligation to take necessary steps to seek a determination of indigency status for each inmate in need of medical care. This Court, and other courts, have held repeatedly that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and is to be employed cautiously. Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980); Humco v. Noble, Ky., 31 S.W.3d 916, 920 (2000). Furthermore, mandamus has been held to issue only where an official refused or neglected to perform a clear statutory duty. Humana of Kentucky, Inc. v. NKC Hospitals, Inc., Ky., 751 S.W.2d 369, 374 (1988) (noting that mandamus will lie where a breach of duty is clear beyond dispute); Stratford v. Crossman, Ky.App., 655 S.W.2d 500, 503 (1983) (providing that mandamus will issue only where the duty of the defendant is clear).
The General Assembly has clearly enunciated whom it intends to prepare the paperwork for determinations of inmate indigency, and the jailer is not included therein. It may well be, as the majority explains, that the jailer is in the best position to ascertain information about inmates’ economic situations. The legislature bases its decisions on experience, empirical data, and the will of the people, and this Court is not in a position to second guess the legislators. Likewise, we are not free to insert words into statutes simply because we believe they should be there. Commonwealth v. Allen, Ky., 980 S.W.2d 278, 280 (1998) (“a court may not interpret a statute at variance with its stated language”); Hatchett v. City of Glasgow, Ky., 340 S.W.2d 248 (1960) (“where a statute on its face is intelligible, the courts are not at liberty to supply words or insert something or make additions....”).
In issuing writs of mandamus, we compel officials to act in accordance with the duties clearly imposed on them by law. In the present case, the law clearly requires that a determination be made regarding the indigency of inmates needing medical care. It does not, however, impose on the jailer the duty of carrying out that task. The majority holds that statutes must be interpreted in such a way that gives effect to the legislative intent, and cites several cases to the end. See Strong v. Chandler, Ky., 70 S.W.3d 405 (2002); Neutzel v. Ryans, 184 Ky. 292, 211 S.W. 852 (1919). It is true at times that ambiguity forces courts to focus on the purposes and circumstances behind legislation. However, the statutes at issue are neither ambiguous nor inconsistent with one another. As such, the plain text of the statutes should govern and this Court should give effect to *615the ordinary meaning of the words therein. Layne v. Newberg, Ky., 841 S.W.2d 181, 183 (1992).
Several statutes work synergistically to establish the procedure for determining indigency of inmates needing medical care. KRS 441.045, concerning inmate medical treatment, reads, “The determination of whether a prisoner is indigent shall be made pursuant to KRS 31.120.” KRS 31.120(2), in turn, states, “[The person seeking indigent status] shall certify by affidavit of indigency which shall be compiled by the pretrial release officer... the material factors relating to his ability to pay in the form the Supreme Court prescribes.” (Emphasis added). KRS 431.515(1) addresses pretrial release investigation and services: “All trial courts in this Commonwealth having jurisdiction of criminal causes shall provide such pretrial release investigation and services as necessary to... assist in the earliest possible determination of whether a person is a needy person under KRS Chapter 31.” Subsection (2) of the same statute makes mention of “the court’s determination of whether a person is a needy person as provided in KRS 31.120.” That the legislature enlisted the services of the trial court and pretrial release officer, but opted not to mention the jailer, calls into question the majority’s interpretation of the statutes. A more realistic reading suggests that the trial court and pretrial release officer are ultimately responsible for making indigency determinations for inmates. Certainly, the jailer should cooperate with these procedures, but no statute suggests that he is under any obligation to initiate and ensure completion of such a determination.
The majority dictates that “mandamus will lie where a statute imposes on a public officer a specific duty which he fails or refuses to perform because of an erroneous conclusion by him as to his responsibilities.” While this rule is sound, it has no application here. No statute imposes on the jailer a “specific duty” to take the necessary steps to seek an indigency determination for inmates in his county needing medical attention. As such, there can be no failure to perform said duty, either intentional or as a result of an erroneous conclusion.
Although no breach has occurred, the majority seeks to create one, even in the absence of supporting evidence. The majority states, “Not to require the jailer to cooperate with other officials in providing the necessary services would produce an absurd result and frustrate the system envisioned by the legislature.” However, there is no indication that the jailer has been unwilling to cooperate with the pretrial release officer, who is statutorily obligated to compile affidavits of indigency. To the contrary, Healthcare itself admits that “It is not as if the Jailer and Pretrial Release Officer are strangers. They work together in many aspects involving the inmates.” This being the case, the absurdity lies in the supposition that the jailer has been an obstacle to payment for medical services provided to indigent inmates. If the system envisioned by the legislature has been frustrated by the omission of a statutory duty to be imposed on the jailer, the legislature is empowered to revisit its statutes and create such a duty.
By issuing a writ of mandamus, which compels the fulfillment of a statutory duty, this Court is creating a duty by supplementing the statute with words that are not there. In so doing, the majority not only undertakes a legislative task, but also undermines the well-established rule that mandamus should not issue if the duty sought to be compelled is subject to the discretion of the officer. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of *616Columbia in Power v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 781, 786 (D.C.Cir.2002), recently stated, “Where an alleged duty is not ... plainly prescribed, but depends on a statute or statutes the construction or application of which is not free from doubt, it is regarded as involving the character of judgment or discretion which cannot be controlled by mandamus.” (quoting Wilbur v. United States ex rel. Kadrie, 281 U.S. 206, 218-219, 50 S.Ct. 320, 74 L.Ed. 809 (1930)). I find such reasoning sound and persuasive, as it forces courts to respect the difficulties and choices associated with work of others, work with which courts may not be entirely familiar.
Here, both the statutory duty before issuance of the writ and the statutory duty imposed by the writ are “not plainly described” or “free from doubt,” and are therefore discretionary. The majority would compel the jailer to take necessary steps to seek a determination of indigency of inmates requiring medical care. Under this obligation, the jailer must decide what steps are necessary, what constitutes seeking a determination, and which inmates require medical care. Therefore, the majority has not only found a violation of a statutory duty that did not exist, it also has fashioned a remedy in mandamus very much subject to the jailer’s discretion in carrying it out.
I cannot agree that the jailer was ever under a clear statutory duty to take steps toward an indigency determination on behalf of inmates needing medical care. The statutory provisions clearly assign that task to the court and pretrial release officer, and the proposed writ of mandamus serves only to confuse the issue. Because a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, it should not be employed by this Court to impose a duty on the jailer that may or may not have been contemplated by the legislature, and that clearly was not placed on the pages of Kentucky’s statutes.
B.
Healthcare requests this writ of mandamus to eliminate future problems regarding unpaid medical bills because in the past, the County has failed to file affidavits of indigency for all of its indigent inmates. The result of this oversight has been that, when billed for medical care of its indigent inmates, the County has refused to issue payment, responding that it is only responsible for inmates with an affidavit of indi-gency on file. In effect, Healthcare is asking this Court to impose extra duties on the Harlan County Jailer to negate any possibility that the County might shirk its financial responsibility. To that end, Healthcare contends that a writ of mandamus requiring the jailer to complete or ensure the completion of an affidavit of indigency for each inmate brought to the hospital for the purpose of receiving medical care is necessary.
The General Assembly has enacted a number of safeguards to ensure that counties are able to pay the medical bills of their indigent inmates and recover medical expenses from inmates who are treated but are not indigent. As previously noted, KRS 431.515(1) requires the trial court to offer pretrial services to needy inmates. KRS 532.354(1) allows local governments to require a reasonable co-payment from prisoners in advance of medical care, but adds that “no prisoner shall be denied medical treatment by reason of indigen-cy.” The same section then places a financial safety net for local governments, authorizing sentencing courts to order reimbursement, minus any co-payment, from prisoners found able to pay for the medical services they received while incarcerated. KRS 532.352(1) makes it clear that any reimbursement collected for services *617rendered, including medical, is to be credited to the local government’s sinking fund. Additionally, KRS 532.358 provides for reimbursement from prisoners upon completion of their sentences, to be paid “to the state or local government.” This section further authorizes the sentencing court to use its contempt sanctions to enforce any reimbursement orders.
Putting these rules into context, it becomes obvious that the County had, or should have had, the means to pay for medical care for all of its inmates. Any debt owed to Healthcare should have been paid by the local government, which presumably had been amassing reimbursement dollars from able inmates in its sinking fund, pursuant to KRS 532.352(1). If the funds were not available, it would have been because either the number of indigent inmates treated surpassed the County’s expectations and budget, or the trial courts were failing to order reimbursement from fínancially-able inmates. In either case, the solution rests with the local government.
Healthcare, the Court of Appeals, and the majority fail to realize that affidavits of indigency would not have created more money for operation of the system. The only consequence of having affidavits of indigency on file for all inmates who received treatment from Healthcare would be a more efficient discovery period and a faster, more responsive settlement. Having already settled, of course, Healthcare stands to gain from this writ of mandamus only an assurance that it will be able to produce proof in the future that it has treated patients for whom the County is financially responsible. The writ does not require payment for such services, and, as such, does not redress the harm allegedly done to Healthcare.
The problem in this case is ultimately one of organization and budgeting, not jailer malfeasance, and does not warrant a writ of mandamus. The legislature has provided a clear vehicle through which local governments can care for their inmates while receiving compensation from those who can afford it. The Harlan County government is responsible for fulfilling its financial obligations, and the County, not the Supreme Court of Kentucky, must find a way to ensure that indigent inmates are cared for and that doctors get paid for their services.
C.
Finally, the remedy presented by the writ is vague and unworkable. Both the Court of Appeals in issuing the writ, and the majority of this Court in upholding said writ, have simply clouded the explicit statutory requirements with vague semantic alternatives. This Court would have the jailer take necessary steps to seek an indigency determination for inmates requiring medical care, but fails to elaborate on what it means to “take necessary steps” or “seek a determination.”
Furthermore, the practical effect of the rule is to require the jailer to obtain indi-gency evaluations for each and every inmate upon arrival at the jail, not merely on an as-needed basis. There are undoubtedly many inmates who require urgent medical care at some point during their incarceration. In such a situation, the jailer would be unable to inform the pretrial release officer and the trial court that an indigency determination is needed, nor would there be time to complete an affidavit and have such notarized. As those would seem to be the “necessary steps” of which the majority speaks, and the jailer would be responsible for completion thereof, he would have to choose between his “new” statutory duty to procure indigency status and his statutory duty to treat inmates humanely by getting them to the *618hospital. See KRS 71.040. To avoid such a conflict, the jailer would necessarily have to seek indigency determinations for all inmates upon their arrival, no matter how short their stay or state of health. This likely was not the legislature’s intention. Had it been so, the legislature would have avoided any mention of indigency determinations at the pretrial, sentencing, and release proceedings.
The majority also relies upon the efficiency of having the jailer initiate indi-gency proceedings as proof of legislative intent, since it is the jailer who has information about the inmates’ prison accounts and any private insurance or other resources for payment. There is no doubt that the jailer is obligated to provide such information to those making the determination. However, KRS 31.120 requires consideration of more than simply the ability to pay for medical care in certifying an affidavit of indigency. KRS 31.120(2) sets forth other factors as well, including income, property owned, outstanding obligations, and the number and ages of dependants. As the jailer may or may not be privy to such information, I cannot conclude that he is necessarily in the best position to seek a determination of inmate indigency.
Furthermore, the majority claims to envision a world in which the jailer, the pretrial release officer, and the trial court work together to make the system run efficiently. Placing the jailer in a position in which he is responsible for the failure of others to do their jobs will likely have the opposite effect. The majority has neglected to consider the plight of the jailer when medical care is required but the “necessary steps” yield no indigency determination due to the fault of another. Though the majority’s decision claims not to place the jailer in a supervisory position, practice will eventually demonstrate the flaw in such reasoning. As the Court’s decision here creates more problems than it solves, the issuance of a writ of mandamus is all the more inappropriate.
CONCLUSION
As the majority attempts to fit the square peg of mandamus into the round hole of statutory interpretation, it encounters additional difficulties reconciling its proposed requirements with other statutory provisions concerning indigency determinations. Likewise, the majority has fashioned a remedy that introduces even more questions about the duties of the jailer. I would avoid these problems altogether and conform my decision to the well-established rules surrounding writs of mandamus, reserving such a drastic remedy for a more pertinent situation. For these reasons, I would reverse the Court of Appeals.
COOPER, and JOHNSTONE, J.J., join in this dissenting opinion.