Texas Attorney General Opinion: JC-383 Page: 1 of 7
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
> ' OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - STATE OF TEXAS
JOHN CORNYN
May 23, 2001
The Honorable Jack M. Skeen, Jr. Opinion No. JC-0383
Smith County Criminal District Attorney
100 North Broadway, 400 Re: Whether, without violating article III,
Tyler, Texas 75702 section 53 of the Texas Constitution, a county
may pay group-health-insurance premiums for
retirees for whom, at the time they retired, the
county did not provide such benefits, and related
questions (RQ-0334-JC)
Dear Mr. Skeen:
Under article III, section 53 of the Texas Constitution, a retired county employee generally
may not receive a new or increased benefit from the county if the county did not provide it when the
employee retired. See TEX. CONST. art. III, 53; Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0297 (2000) at 4.
Since October 1, 1996, Smith County (the "county") has paid group-health-insurance premiums for
its retired employees, including nine (the "nine retirees") who retired when the county provided that
a retiree could continue to participate, at the retiree's own expense, in the county's health-insurance
plan for a period consistent with federal law.' See Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1985, Pub. L. No. 99-272, 100 Stat. 82 (1986) (continued health-insurance coverage provisions
are codified at 29 U.S.C. 1161-69 and 42 U.S.C. 300bb-1 to -8 (1994 & Supp. IV 1998))
[hereinafter COBRA]. We assume that the nine retirees have provided no additional consideration
in return for the county's payment of health-insurance premiums. You ask whether, under article
III, section 53 of the Texas Constitution, the county may pay the nine retirees' health-insurance
premiums. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 2; TEX. CONST. art. III, 53. Because the county
did not provide for such a benefit when the nine retired, it may not pay the premiums.
You ask two other related questions. You question whether the county must ask the nine
retirees to reimburse the county for the premiums it has paid since October 1, 1996. See Request
Letter, supra note 1, at 3. The county may, but it need not. You ask last whether the county may
invite the nine retirees to participate in the county's group-health-insurance policy if the retirees pay
their own premiums. See id. We conclude that those who retired between January 1, 1994 and
October 1, 1996 may be entitled to participate in accordance with chapter 175 of the Local'See Letter from Honorable Jack M. Skeen, Jr., Smith County Criminal District Attorney, to Honorable
John Cornyn, Texas Attorney General (Dec. 28, 2000) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter Request Letter].
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: JC-383, text, May 23, 2001; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth274692/m1/1/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.