Request By:
Mr. James B. Allen, Jr.
Clark County Judge Executive
P.O. Box 5
Winchester, Kentucky 40391
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Your question relates to who pays for psychological evaluations pertaining to county jail prisoners.
Your letter reads in part:
"During the past two (2) years, the Clark County Fiscal Court has received bills from a local health care provider for Psychological Evaluations, which were ordered by the District Court Judge. Most of the persons who received these evaluations were incarcerated in the Clark County Jail at the time the evaluations were ordered by the District Judge.
"I have refused to pay these bills because I can see no statutory responsibility of a County Government to pay these expenses. It would seem to me that if an evaluation was ordered by a District Judge, that either the District Court or the Inmate Medical Expense Program should be held responsible for this expenditure and not the County Government who has no control over the situation."
The specific question reads:
"If a District Judge orders a Psychological Evaluation of an indigent person, who is responsible for bearing the expense of this evaluation?"
Under the current KRS 441.010(3), if a prisoner in the county jail needs medical care and is a needy person, the unit of government whose law has been allegedly violated shall pay for such prisoner's medical expenses. Usually a prisoner is charged with a statutory violation. In such cases, the state must pay the indigent's necessary medical care bill. The determination of whether a prisoner is a needy or indigent person must be made by the court concerned pursuant to KRS 31.120. Only a licensed physician may determine that medical care can be postponed without hazard. KRS 441.010 was amended by S.B. 361 in the 1984 session (eff. 7-13-84). Under subsection (3) of KRS 441.010, as amended, generally the cost of providing "necessary medical, dental and psychological care for prisoners" in the county jail shall be paid from the county jail budget. (Emphasis added). Note, however, that prior to the amendment of KRS 441.010 and after the amendment only necessary medical care is involved. The amendment specifically provides for "psychological care." The point is that psychological or psychiatrical evaluations do not fall under the term "psychological care." "Necessary care" is defined in KRS 441.010(9), as amended, as the care of a nonelective nature that cannot be postponed until after the period of confinement without hazard to the life of the prisoner.
The State and Local Finance Office of the Finance Cabinet has informed us that courts are ordering psychological or psychiatrical evaluations in criminal cases where a defense of insanity, mental disease or defect is raised. See RCr 9.90, KRS 504.020 and 504.030. The defendant must prove his insanity. Wainscott v. Commonwealth, Ky., 562 S.W.2d 628 (1978), cert. den., 439 U.S. 868, 99 S. Ct. 196, 58 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1978).
CONCLUSION
Where a county is currently committed to a public defender program for a particular fiscal year pursuant to KRS 31.160, the county must bear the expense of expert witnesses' fees and psychological examinations used in the defense of indigents charged with felonies and represented by the public advocate. This would also apply to indigents charged with a misdemeanor or offense any penalty for which includes the possibility of confinement or a fine of five hundred dollars ($500) or more. See KRS 31.100(4) and 31.160(1), relating to serious crimes. Since your question is framed around orders of district judges requiring psychological evaluations, a district court has jurisdiction of misdemeanors. KRS 24A.110. See also KRS 504.060 through 504.150. See KRS 31.190(1), 31.200(1) and 31.185.
Note that KRS 31.190 directs the fiscal court of each county to appropriate sufficient funds to administer the program of representation that it has elected under KRS 31.160. See Young v. Commonwealth, Ky., 585 S.W.2d 378 (1979) 379.
See KRS 31.120, relating to the determination of indigency of a prisoner.
If the counties wish to be relieved of the burden of such costs under KRS Chapter 31, it would require the action of the General Assembly in session.
So far we have dealt with orders of the district court directing the making of psychological evaluations in criminal cases.
Now, we must consider orders of the district court in non-criminal cases, i.e., proceedings for the involuntary hospitalization of mentally ill persons, pursuant to KRS Chapter 202A. See KRS 202A.014. In such cases the psychiatrist or psychologist (see KRS 202A.011(11)) who examines the respondent is entitled to a fee for such examination and certification, to be paid by the county in which the petition is filed. KRS 202A.056(2).