Must Lafourche Parish's coroner repay past autopsy fees, and which parish pay ordinance controls?

Plain-English summary

Lafourche Parish questioned years of payments to its coroner and staff after the coroner raised autopsy charges. The parish pointed to ordinances governing compensation and asked whether past fees had to be repaid and whether a later budget ordinance could set pay above an earlier ordinance.

The attorney general said a parish ordinance could not remove fees authorized by state law or restrict the coroner's constitutional duties. The opinion treated the part of Ordinance 4943 that removed a statutorily authorized autopsy fee as ineffective. It said the parish could seek support for invoices it was holding, but could not refuse payment of necessary expenses of the coroner's office.

Past payments required a separate factual inquiry. The attorney general said no reimbursement was due if the parish found that payments made through both parties' mistake were for “work earned.” The office did not decide whether the disputed payments met that description. If the parish sought repayment for amounts not earned, the opinion identified a three-year period for a claim to recoup improperly paid wages.

On the salary question, the attorney general concluded that the later budget ordinance, No. 5047, superseded Ordinance 4943's compensation provision. It treated the later ordinance as Lafourche Parish's governing statement of the coroner's salary.

What this means for you

Lafourche Parish officials

The opinion allowed the parish to hold current invoices while seeking support or explanation, but said it could not refuse necessary coroner expenses solely because a local ordinance purported to limit them. For past payments, the office left the “work earned” finding to the parish; that finding controlled its no-reimbursement conclusion.

Coroners and staff

The opinion treated the coroner as an independent constitutional officer funded under state law. It said a parish compensation ordinance could provide a salary, but could not eliminate the office's statutory authority or prevent it from carrying out required functions. The past-payment answer was conditional on the parish finding that the work was earned.

Parish budget officers and attorneys

The opinion read the later budget ordinance as replacing an earlier compensation provision. It also identified a time limit on any action to recover improperly paid wages, without deciding which disputed invoices, if any, were recoverable.

Common questions

Q: Did the attorney general order the coroner to repay all past autopsy fees?
A: No. The opinion said no reimbursement was due if the parish found that the amounts were paid by mistake but for work actually earned. It could not decide that factual question itself.

Q: Could Lafourche Parish refuse the coroner's pending invoices under its fee ordinance?
A: The opinion said the parish could seek further support for the invoices, but could not refuse necessary expenses of the coroner's office where state law controlled and the local restriction conflicted with it.

Q: Could a parish ordinance remove an autopsy fee authorized by state law?
A: The attorney general said the part of Ordinance 4943 that removed the authorized fee was ineffective. Parish ordinances could fund the office but could not constrict its statutory and constitutional functions.

Q: Which ordinance set the coroner's salary in the opinion?
A: The office said the later budget ordinance, No. 5047, replaced Ordinance 4943's compensation provision. It did not require a separate amendment to the earlier ordinance to reach that conclusion.

Q: Was there a limit on seeking repayment of improperly paid wages?
A: The opinion cited a three-year prescriptive period and said only payments made within the three years before a filed recovery action were potentially reachable. It made no finding that particular payments were improper.

Background and statutory framework

The parish described invoices for autopsies and sanity hearings paid over several years and a later increase in autopsy fees. The opinion reviewed the coroner's status as an independent constitutional officer under Louisiana Constitution Article V, section 29, the state-law funding rules in La. R.S. 13:5706, and the outside-expert autopsy provision in La. R.S. 13:5710.

The attorney general concluded that local ordinances were ineffective to the extent they impinged on the coroner's constitutional or statutory authority. It then distinguished legal entitlement to fees from the factual issue of whether past payments were for work earned. Finally, it read the later budget ordinance as controlling the salary provision and cited La. C.C. art. 3494 for the period applicable to a claim for repayment of improperly paid wages.

Citations and references

• La. R.S. 13:5706 (coroner funding and autopsy costs)
• La. R.S. 13:5710 (outside autopsy experts)
• La. C.C. art. 3494 (period for wage-recovery action discussed)
• La. Const. art. V, sec. 29 (coroner office)
• Carriere v. St. Landry Parish Police Jury (coroner compensation and necessary expenses)
• Grabert v. Iberia Parish School Board (wage-recovery prescription)
• Mullins v. State, 387 So.2d 1151 (La. 1980) (coroner's constitutional duties)
• State v. St. Julian, 61 So.2d 464 (La. 1952) (later enactment)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/23-0125

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

State of Louisiana
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL DIVISION
RO. BOX 94005
BATON ROUGE
70804-9005
Jeff Landry
Attorney General

January 5, 2024
OPiNION 23-0125

13 CORONERS
Honorable Archie Chaisson Ill
. La. Const. art. V, sec. 29 La. R.S. 13:5706
Lafourche Parish President La. Const. art. VI, sec. 5 La. R.S. 13:5710
402 Green Street La. R.S. 13:5701, etseq. La. CC. art. 3494
Thibodaux, LA 70301
.
The passage of a local ordinance that conflicts with State law regarding coroner pay is superseded by State law.

Dear President Chaisson:

You have requested an opinion from this office regarding certain matters related to the pay authorized by law for coroners and their staff. Specifically, you have presented the following fact pattern:

According to your request, the Lafourche Parish Coroner (“Coroner”) has submitted various invoices to Lafourche Parish (“the Parish”) that you believe to be inconsistent with a series of Parish ordinances passed between the years 1 989 and 201 1 You also inform .

us that similar invoices from the Coroner were paid by the Parish for many years, with only an increase in autopsy fees by the Coroner from $400 to $500 in late 2022 raising red flags about previous payments by the Parish. With this factual scenario in mind, you ask the following specific questions:

1 Are the coroner, assistant coroners, or others that performed autopsies or sanity .

hearings for Lafourche Parish required to reimburse fees collected since 201 1 to the Parish considering the removal of autopsy fees by Ordinance No. 4943, adopted in May 10, 2011?
2. Does a Budget Ordinance, properly ratified bythe governing body in April 1 3, 201 1, allow the coroner to be paid greater than what is documented in the previously adopted Ordinance 4943, or should Ordinance 4943 be amended to reflect the increased salary?

Before answering your questions, it is imperative to understand the basic funding of coroners under Louisiana law. Only with that understanding in mind can any opinion regarding reimbursements be rendered.

In the recent past, this office has opined that:

Coroners are constitutionally-created offices. In the past, both this office and the Louisiana Supreme Court have opined on coroners’ independent

Page 2

OPINION 23-0125
Honorable Archie Chaisson, III
Page 2
nature—one that is distinct from the parish with coterminous geographic boundaries. Based upon these prior analyses, it is our opinion that, though coroners are often wholly or partially funded by a parish government, they are independent constitutional offices that are distinct from the governmental structure of their funding sources.1

In the matter of Carriere v. St. Landry Parish Police Jury,2 the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that:
though there are statutory limitations on certain expenditures by coroners, if coroners cannot accomplish their constitutional duties within those statutory limits, then, the parochial or municipal governing authority (as applicable) must fund the “necessary and unavoidable” operating expenses of the coroner’s office.3

In a broad sense, as the Supreme Court and this office have observed in the past, coroners, functioning as autonomous constitutionally-created State officials, are funded pursuant to State law, though the funding itself derives from the relevant political subdivision as noted above. The law pertaining to that funding may be found in La. R.S. 13:5706.

These local governing authorities are not without some authority in the basic funding processes for coroners.4 In this regard, La. R.S. 13:5706(A)(1)(c), which sets some limitations on autopsy costs, contains the following proviso: “at the discretion of the governing authority of the parish or municipality, and the cost of any laboratory tests actually incurred.” However, this proviso does not authorize the relevant local government to set the autopsy costs; these costs are set by statute. For autopsies, the current statutory range for coroner-conducted autopsies is not less than $250 and not more than
$300, exclusive of any laboratory tests involved. Moreover, additional amounts authorized by La. R.S. 13:5706(A)(1) may drive the cost of a basic autopsy, without including laboratory test costs, to and above $400. In addition, La. R.S. 13:5710 authorizes coroners to contract with outside experts for the performance of autopsies up to the amount of $500. Finally, while the relevant local governing authority may inquire into perceived overages, as we have opined in the past, the relevant local governing authority may not implement limitations on the functionality of the coroner’s office that would stifle the constitutionally-mandated functioning of that office.5

With this basic recitation of constitutional, statutory, and jurisprudential mandates, holdings, and observations regarding the nature of coroners’ funding, we now answer each of your specific questions in order.

1 La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 20-0065 (citing La. const. art. V, sec. 29, La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 90-247, and Mullins v. State, 387 So.2d 1151 (La. 1980). 2 97-c-I 91 4, 97-C-I 937 (La. 3/4/98), 707 So.2d 979.
La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 20-0065.
See La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 12-01 02.
See e.g., La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 20-0035.

Page 3

OPINION 23-0125
Hon. Archie Chaisson, III
Page 3

I . Are the coroner, assistant coroners, or others that performed autopsies or sanity hearings for Lafourche required to reimburse fees collected since 201 1 considering the removal of autopsy fees in Ordinance No. 4943?

This question, though seeking guidance regarding the possible reimbursement of funds, actually must begin with an analysis of the validity of the ordinance itself in light of seemingly conflicting State law on this topic. By way of Ordinance No. 4943, the Parish sought, in 201 1 to limit autopsy fees. Contrarily, though La. R.S. 13:5706 and La. R.S.
,

13:5710 contain parameters within which autopsy costs should be kept, as discussed above. Those State laws also contemplate the possibility that autopsies will cost more than the statutorily-prescribed amount and provide mechanisms for the coroner to seek and the parish governing authority to approve such overages. While La. R.S. I 3:5706(A)(1 )(c) places some discretion with the relevant governing authority in setting maximum autopsy fees, the Louisiana Supreme Court and this office have consistently opined that relevant governing authorities cannot withhold such funds when they are necessary for the conduct of the business of the coroner’s office, as such withholdings would represent an infringement on the constitutional charge to coroners embodied in La. Const. art. V, sec. 29.6

Louisiana Constitution article VI, section 5(G) provides that, “[n]o home rule charter or plan of government shall contain any provision affecting. .the office[] of. .coroner.” Thus,
.
.

though the Parish is a Home Rule Charter body pursuant to the Louisiana Constitution, it is constitutionally prohibited from enacting laws that would affect the functionality of the Coroner. Accordingly, any Parish ordinance must comply with and cannot constrict State law regarding coroners (La. R.S. I 3:5701 et seq.). To be sure, Parish ordinances may ,

be used to provide for budgetary allocations of funds for the Coroner, but they cannot be used to limit the authority of the Coroner.

The Parish has enacted several ordinances over the years that relate to the Coroner. You have provided us with Ordinance Nos. 1867 (passed in 1989), 4720 (passed in 2010), and 4943 (passed in 2011). These ordinances have purported to implement funding mechanisms and limitations on the Coroner. It is our opinion that, to the extent that these ordinances limit the Coroner’s constitutional mandate to discharge his duties or otherwise impinge on the Coroner’s statutory authorizations, they are invalid.7 Not all of these ordinances, however, appear to be invalid. For example, Ordinance No. 1867, sets an annual salary for the Coroner and several of his employees. Because Louisiana law does not prohibit the provision of such a salary, Ordinance No. 1867 in this regard is not prohibited. However, Ordinance No. 4943 amends Ordinance No. 1867 to remove the statutorily-authorized autopsy fee. Because this Ordinance “affect[s]. .the office[]
.

of. .coroner,” that provision is ineffective.
.

6
See e.g., La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 14-0029.
Accord, Me/br v. Parish of Jefferson, 2021-0858 (La. 3/25/22), 338 So.3d 1138.

Page 4

OPINION 23-0125
Honorable Archie Chaisson, Ill
Page 4

According to the plain language of Ordinance No. 1867, Lafourche Parish opted to implement a salary plus fee basis for the payment of its Coroner in I 987. As we observed in an earlier opinion, the Carriere case, supra, holds that Louisiana law, “recognizes three different methods of compensating coroners: a salary, a salary plus fees, or fees alone. .and only when it is contemplated that a coroner will be compensated exclusively .

with a salary is he excluded from application of”8 La. R.S. I 3:5706. Thus, that the Coroner is paid a salary, under existing Lafourche Parish ordinances, is of no moment to the propriety of the Coroner also receiving authorized fees. Pursuant to Ordinance No. I 867, the Parish was a “salary plus fees” jurisdiction under the Carriere case from I 989 through 201 1 and thus the Coroner is entitled to both. In 201 1 the Parish, with Ordinance No.
,

4943, switched to being a salary only jurisdiction for the Coroner. Based on our review of Ordinance No. 4943, none of the pay mechanisms for employees of the Coroner were impacted by the passage of this law.9

With regard to the question of whether the coroner or his employees must reimburse the parish past amounts, we have previously opined that such action is not necessary.1° In 2004, we opined that when such payments are, made through a mistake of the both “. . .

[parties], and was for work earned,”11 reimbursements were not required. Clearly, according to your request, the now complained-of payments were billed by the Coroner and paid by the Parish, “[for reasons that are not clear.”12 This appears to be a classic example of a “mistake made by both” parties. Although we cannot opine here regarding the factual question of whether the past amounts were for “work earned,” based upon the above analysis of the Coroner’s duties and accounting for reasonable inflation over the years, it is not unreasonable to think that the Parish can make such a factual determination. On a factual finding by the Parish that the past amounts were for “work earned,” it is our opinion that no reimbursement is due.

Should the Parish seek reimbursement for some of these funds upon a finding that they were not paid for “work earned,” please be aware that reimbursement is not available for an infinite amount of time. In Grabert v. Iberia Parish School Board,13 the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a claim for reimbursement of improperly paid wages is subject to the three-year prescriptive period of La. C.C. art. 3494. Thus, should efforts to seek reimbursement be pursued by the Parish, only the payments for the three years prior to filing an action for reimbursement are even available for possible recoupment.14 Additionally, as a housekeeping matter, upon a finding that such past amounts were for “work earned,” we recommend that a single resolution be passed ratifying those past payments.

8 La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 08-0185 (quoting Carriere, 707 So.2d at 983).
Indeed, Ordinance No. 1867, Section 2, contains the only mention of the coroner’s employees and
then only “Assistant coroners.” This provision is carried through the subsequent ordinances without change and with no mention of any other employees. 10 See e.g., La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 04-0255; La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 90-1 36. 11 La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 04-0255. 12 Opinion request letter at 1. 13 93-2715 (La. 7/5/94), 638 So.2d 645. 14 La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 18-0008.

Page 5

OPINION 23-0 125
Honorable Archie Chaisson, III
Page 5

Based upon your opinion request, it is clear that the Parish is now holding certain invoices from the Coroner due to the above-discussed discrepancies. At this point, the Parish has seemingly become aware of the ordinances that purported to limit certain payments to the Coroner. However, as discussed above, these ordinances are inapplicable to the extent that they conflict with State law. Because La. R.S. I 3:5706(A)(1 )(c) provides the amounts, exclusive of “the cost of any laboratory tests actually incurred,” that are permissible to pay a coroner for an autopsy, it is this law that must control the payment of these held invoices. As noted above, La. R.S. I 3:5706(A)(1 )(c) provides some discretion to the governing authority to allow for autopsy costs that exceed $250.00. Moreover, a reading of Mullins, supra, and Carriere, supra, instruct that, should additional funds be required for a coroner to undertake his constitutional duties, with reasonable explanation, such funds should be paid by the relevant governing authority. Accordingly, while we believe that it is appropriate to hold the current invoices for further support or explanation from the Coroner, refusal to pay those invoices for “necessary expenses” is not permissible.

2. Does a Budget Ordinance, properly ratified by the governing body, allow the coroner to be paid greater than what is documented in Ordinance 4943 or should Ordinance 4943 be amended to reflect the increased salary?

Under the basic rules of statutory construction, whose application is appropriate here as ordinances are the equivalent of statutes at the parochial or municipal level, a subsequent pronouncement of the relevant governing body typically supersedes prior pronouncements.15 Accordingly, because the budget ordinance to which you refer, Ordinance No. 5047, was enacted in December 201 1—several months after Ordinance 4943 (enacted in April 201 1 )—the later enactment (5047) should control. The later enactment (5047), though a general law, contains a provision that specifically changes the content ofthe earlier enactment (4943), thus satisfying the other basic rule of statutory construction that a specific law takes precedence over a general law.16 In this case, the general law (5047) contains a specific provision regarding the Coroner’s compensation, thus ousting the preceding legislative statement on that topic (4943). Accordingly, it is our opinion thatthe budget ordinance (5047) effectively replaced the Coroner’s compensation set forth in Ordinance 4943. Based on conversations with your staff, it is clear that the substance of Ordinance 5047 as it relates to the coroner has remained unchanged since 2011 and thus is the final word from Lafourche Parish on the Coroner’s salary.

15 State v. St. Julian, 61 So.2d 464, 466 (La. 1952). 16 City of Pineville v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, 00-1983 (La.6/29/O1), 791 So.2d 609, 613 (noting that the specific controls over the general in statutory interpretation).

Page 6

OPINION 23-0125
Honorable Archie Chaisson, Ill
Page 6

We hope that this opinion has adequately addressed the legal issues you have raised. If our office can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. With best regards, I am,

Very truly yours,

JEFF LANDRY
ATTO’

By
S.D.

J L/RMS/cw