Subscribe to School Law Newsletter
Close Window

Board of County Commissioners To Designate Tuberculosis-Control Units Without Contracts; Designated Tuberculosis-Control Units Cannot Discharge Duties

In the Attorney General Formal Opinion, 2022 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 2022-08, the Attorney General opined that a board of county commissioners is not required or permitted to enter into a contract with a general health district if the board has designated the health district as a tuberculosis-control unit (“Unit”), and if a general health district is designated as a Unit, it cannot refuse to provide the services of a Unit.

Here, it was asked whether contracts were permitted or required with the general health district for Unit services. Under R.C. 339.72, the board is required to designate a tuberculosis-control unit for the county and may choose such entities as 1) a communicable-disease-control program operated by the board of health or general health district; 2) a tuberculosis clinic established by the board; or 3) a hospital with which the board has already contracted for tuberculosis-clinic services. Once designated, the Unit is required to track cases, issue referrals, report to the Ohio Department of Health, monitor cases, and enforce treatment regimens. The Attorney General stated that the legislature was intentional with excluding the mentioning of the word “contract” under R.C. 339.72 for Unit services and instead using the word “designate.” The Attorney General further stated that the statute makes no mention of payment for Unit services provided by the health district, and thus concluded that a contract was not permitted nor required.

It was also asked whether the health district that was designated as the Unit could refuse to execute its statutory duties. The Attorney General stated that the entity the board chooses to serve as the Unit “shall accept that designation and fulfill its duties as the tuberculosis-control unit specified under R.C. 339.71 to 339.89.” R.C. 339.72(B). Therefore, a designated Unit cannot refuse its duties.

To read this opinion, click here.

Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.

Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.