A Grant County resident died in a car crash in Codington County. The Codington County coroner ordered an autopsy. Which county had to pay the pathologist's $610 bill: the county where the person lived, or the county where they died and the autopsy was ordered?
Plain-English summary
A Grant County resident drove his car off the road in Watertown (Codington County) on November 26, 1986, hit a foundation, and died. The Codington County coroner ordered an autopsy. A Sioux Falls pathologist did the work and sent a $610 bill to Codington County. The Codington County State's Attorney, Roger Ellyson, asked AG Roger Tellinghuisen which county had to pay: Codington (where the death happened and the autopsy was ordered) or Grant (where the decedent lived).
The AG's answer was Codington. The statutory chain was clean. SDCL 23-14-9.1 let either a state's attorney or a county coroner order an autopsy when the deceased may have died "in his jurisdiction" by unlawful means or, more broadly for coroners, when the death fell within the categories of SDCL 23-14-18 and was "in the public interest." That language tied the autopsy authority to the county where the body was. SDCL 23-14-9.2 then set the payment rule: the physician's "reasonable fee" was "ascertained and approved by the board of county commissioners and paid out of the general fund of the county." The county was the one whose coroner ordered the autopsy.
The opinion was short and direct. It mattered because cross-county vehicle deaths are common in rural states, and the temptation to push costs back to the decedent's home county is real. The AG closed that door.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1987. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. The coroner statutes in SDCL chapter 23-14 have been amended since 1987, and South Dakota's medical examiner system has evolved. Current cost-allocation rules should be confirmed against the present version of SDCL 23-14-9.2 and any successor statutes.
What the opinion meant at the time
For state's attorneys and coroners weighing whether to order an autopsy, the opinion was a reminder that the county fisc was on the line. SDCL 23-14-9.1 gave broad authority, but exercising that authority committed the county's general fund. A county under budget pressure had a reason to be deliberate.
For pathologists doing forensic autopsy work for South Dakota counties, the opinion gave a clear answer about which county to bill. The county whose coroner sent the order. Pathologists could refer to this opinion in collections disputes when a county tried to deflect the bill to a neighbor.
For county commissioners reviewing autopsy fees for approval, SDCL 23-14-9.2 gave them a substantive role: they "ascertained and approved" the fee. The commissioners could reasonably question whether a fee was excessive, but they could not deny payment simply because the decedent lived elsewhere.
For families of decedents, the opinion clarified that the autopsy bill was a county matter, not an estate liability. The pathologist's claim ran against the county that ordered the autopsy, not against the decedent's estate.
Common questions
Q: What about jurisdiction over the death itself?
A: SDCL 23-14-9.1 limited the state's attorney to deaths "in his jurisdiction." A state's attorney could not order autopsies for deaths in other counties. Coroners had similar territorial jurisdiction over deaths occurring in their county.
Q: When could a coroner order an autopsy?
A: Two paths. First, when the coroner had reason to believe the death was by unlawful means. Second, for deaths falling within the categories in SDCL 23-14-18 (homicide, suicide, accident, suspicious deaths, deaths within 24 hours of admission without a treating physician, etc.) when ordering an autopsy was "in the public interest."
Q: Did the home county have any recourse?
A: The opinion did not identify any. The statute placed the cost on the county where the order originated. There was no reimbursement mechanism running from the home county to the investigating county.
Q: What if the coroner was also the pathologist?
A: SDCL 23-14-9.2 specifically addressed that case: "If the coroner is a physician or surgeon, he may personally perform such autopsy; and he shall receive a reasonable fee for his services to be ascertained and approved by the board of county commissioners and paid out of the general fund of the county."
Q: Could the county refuse to pay if it disagreed with the coroner's decision to order the autopsy?
A: SDCL 23-14-9.2 mandated payment ("shall receive a reasonable fee"), so the commission's role was to confirm the fee was reasonable, not to revisit the coroner's underlying decision. The coroner was the authorized officer to order autopsies under SDCL 23-14-9.1.
Background and statutory framework
South Dakota's death investigation system in 1987 ran through county coroners (typically elected, often non-physicians) backed up by contracted pathologists for autopsy work. SDCL chapter 23-14 set out the procedural framework. SDCL chapter 34-26 contained the substantive law on dissection authority.
The cost-allocation question was particularly relevant in South Dakota's rural geography. Many counties did not have a pathologist, so the work went to a regional pathologist (often in Sioux Falls or Rapid City). The pathologist then needed to know which county to bill. Without the SDCL 23-14-9.2 rule, the question of cost responsibility could have generated significant disputes between neighboring counties whose residents traveled, worked, and sometimes died across county lines.
The SDCL 23-14-18 list of deaths subject to investigation was broad: violent deaths, suspicious deaths, deaths in institutions without medical attendance, and similar categories. Most highway fatalities fell within the list, especially single-vehicle crashes where the cause of the death (medical event vs. driver error vs. mechanical failure) might be material to insurance, criminal, or civil litigation.
The Codington County example was an ordinary application of the framework. A driver from a neighboring county died in a single-vehicle crash. The Codington coroner ordered an autopsy. The pathologist billed Codington. Codington asked whether it could shift the cost. The AG said no, with citation to the statutes.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- SDCL 23-14-9.1 (authority to order autopsy)
- SDCL 23-14-9.2 (county pays autopsy fee from general fund)
- SDCL 23-14-18 (deaths subject to coroner investigation)
- SDCL 34-26-2, 34-26-7 (dissection authority)
Source
Original opinion text
Coroner costs
Dear Mr. Ellyson:
You have requested an official opinion from this Office in regard to the following factual situation.
FACTS
A Grant County resident drove his automobile off the road and into a foundation in Watertown, Codington County, South Dakota, on November 26, 1986. The driver was killed. The Codington County coroner ordered an autopsy to be performed.
A pathologist in Sioux Falls performed the autopsy at a cost of $610. The doctor has submitted a bill to Codington County for his services.
Based on the above facts, you have asked the following question:
QUESTION:
Which county is responsible for the costs of the autopsy - Codington or Grant County?
Your question may best be answered by an examination of two factors. First, we must determine who may order an autopsy and under what circumstances an autopsy is justified. Second, we must determine who is required to pay for the autopsy.
The dead body of a human being may be dissected pursuant to an autopsy if ordered by the state's attorney or an investigating county coroner. SDCL 34-26-2, 34-26-7. The authority to order an autopsy is set forth in SDCL 23-14-9.1, which provides that:
If a state's attorney or a coroner has reason to believe that a deceased person may have died in his jurisdiction by unlawful means, either of them may order and direct a physician or surgeon to perform an autopsy. If in the public interest, the county coroner may order an autopsy on those deaths falling within his jurisdiction mentioned in subdivisions (1) to (5), inclusive, of § 23-14-18.
It is therefore clear that a state's attorney or county coroner may order an autopsy in appropriate circumstances.
Payment of autopsy fees is governed by SDCL 23-14-9.2. This statute provides that:
A physician or surgeon appointed under § 23-14-9.1 shall receive a reasonable fee for his services to be ascertained and approved by the board of county commissioners and paid out of the general fund of the county. If the coroner is a physician or surgeon, he may personally perform such autopsy; and he shall receive a reasonable fee for his services to be ascertained and approved by the board of county commissioners and paid out of the general fund of the county...
Therefore, it is my opinion that Codington County should pay for the autopsy ordered by the Codington County coroner.
Sincerely,
Roger A. Tellinghuisen
ATTORNEY GENERAL