TX JM-497 May 19, 1986

Could a Texas appropriations rider require non-general-revenue funds to reimburse workers' compensation costs, and could a state agency buy separate coverage?

Short answer: JM-497 said the reimbursement rider was valid, but it did not apply to the Texas Surplus Property Agency because that agency received no appropriation under the act. The opinion also said state agencies could not buy workers' compensation insurance because the state was required to self-insure.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1986. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1986
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.
Disclaimer: This is an official Texas Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority in Texas courts but are not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. The opinion dates from 1986 and was later modified by LO-93-80; verify current statutes and case law before relying on it.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official AG opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original AG opinion (PDF)

Texas AG Opinion JM-497: Workers' Compensation Reimbursement

Plain-English summary

The Texas Surplus Property Agency asked whether an appropriations rider could require funds other than general revenue to reimburse the General Revenue Fund for workers' compensation benefits paid to state employees. JM-497 concluded: "A rider that requires other funds to reimburse the general revenue fund for workers' compensation payments is valid." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0497.pdf

The opinion also said the rider did not apply to the Surplus Property Agency because the agency received no appropriation under the act. It stated: "riders affect only appropriations made in the Appropriations Act." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0497.pdf

JM-497 further concluded that a state agency could not purchase workers' compensation insurance because the legislature required the state to be a self-insurer. It emphasized that the rider did not remove otherwise covered state employees from workers' compensation eligibility. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0497.pdf

Subsequent treatment

The official JM-497 landing page states: "Modified by LO-93-80." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0497

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986. 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.

Common questions

Could an appropriations rider direct reimbursement to general revenue?

Yes. JM-497 said a rider could "detail, limit, or restrict the use of funds appropriated" and found this rider valid because it detailed the use of appropriated funds without conflicting with the general workers' compensation law. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0497.pdf

Did the rider apply to the Texas Surplus Property Agency?

No. The opinion found that the agency received no appropriation under the current Appropriations Act and concluded: "the rider you ask about does not control the transfer of funds from your agency." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0497.pdf

Could the agency buy workers' compensation insurance?

No. JM-497 said: "The legislature requires that the state be a self-insurer" and therefore a state agency could not purchase workers' compensation insurance. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0497.pdf

Could insufficient agency funds eliminate an employee's workers' compensation benefits?

No, under the opinion's analysis. JM-497 explained that benefits were paid from money appropriated to the Attorney General's office and that the rider required reimbursement only after payments were made. It said the rider "does not exclude any state employee from coverage under article 8309g." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0497.pdf

Background and statutory framework

The rider required the Attorney General's Workers' Compensation Division to prepare quarterly statements of benefits paid. Agencies using funds other than general revenue were directed to reimburse general revenue proportionately, and the State Auditor was assigned to review compliance. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0497.pdf

JM-497 distinguished a permissible rider that controls an appropriation from an impermissible rider that repeals, modifies, or amends general law. It found no conflict with article 8309g, the statute governing workers' compensation for state employees. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0497.pdf

Citations and references

  • Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 980, article V, sections 60 and 72
  • article 8309g, V.T.C.S.
  • Attorney General Opinions JM-343 (1985), JM-479 (1986), JM-417 (1985), H-681 (1975), and JM-445 (1986)

Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0497.pdf

Source

Original opinion text

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

The Attorney General of Texas

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General

May 19, 1986

Mr. Marvin J. Titzman
Executive Director
Texas Surplus Property Agency
P. O. Box 8120
San Antonio, Texas 78208

Opinion No. JM-497

Re: Validity of Appropriations Act rider requiring reimbursement to the General Revenue Fund for workers' compensation benefits paid to certain employers

Dear Mr. Titzman:

You ask about the validity of the following Appropriations Act rider:

a. At the close of each calendar quarter, the Workers' Compensation Division of the Attorney General's Office shall prepare a statement reflecting the amount of workers' compensation payments paid to all former and current state employees and present it to the Comptroller of Public Accounts.

The heads of state agencies, institutions, departments, commissions, boards, divisions, or other units of state government are directed to determine the proportionate amount of the reimbursement or payment due from funds other than General Revenue Funds and to present the Comptroller of Public Accounts a purchase or transfer voucher requesting reimbursement from such funds to general revenue. Such transfers and payments as are authorized under law shall be made within thirty (30) days from receipt of the statement of payments due. The Comptroller of Public Accounts may prescribe accounting procedures and regulations to implement this section.

b. An agency, institution, department, commission, board, division, or other unit of state government is authorized to allocate funds to a revolving account created on its books to receive contributions from funds other than general revenue based on a percentage-of-payroll assessment to be determined by such unit of government for the purpose of reimbursing the General Revenue Fund for workers' compensation claims paid.

c. The State Auditor shall review in his audit of respective agencies compliance with the provisions of this section.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 980, art. V, § 60, at 7791. That rider implements a more general rider, which provides:

It is the intent of the Legislature that unless otherwise restricted payment for salaries, wages, and benefits paid from appropriated funds shall be proportional to the source of funds.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 980, art. V, § 72, at 7794.

The Attorney General's Office makes workers' compensation payments to state employees out of an appropriation from general revenue. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 980, art. I, § 23, at 7332. See V.T.C.S. art. 8309g, § 3 (Attorney General's office administers workers' compensation program for state employees). The rider set out above deals with workers' compensation payments made to state employees whose salaries and other benefits are paid from funds appropriated from some fund other than general revenue. The rider requires any such other fund to reimburse the general revenue fund for workers' compensation payments made to a state employee whose payment and benefits come from such other fund. If the salary and benefits of a state employee who receives workers' compensation payments are paid only in part from a fund other than general revenue, that other fund must reimburse general revenue in proportion to the amount of the employee's salary and benefits that the other fund pays.

A rider to an appropriation bill may detail, limit, or restrict the use of funds appropriated therein. Attorney General Opinion JM-343 (1985). A rider may not, however, repeal, modify, or amend an existing general law. The rider you ask about merely details the way appropriated funds are to be used, and it does not conflict with the general law regarding workers' compensation payments to state employees, V.T.C.S. art. 8309g. Therefore, it is a valid rider.

We note, however, that riders affect only appropriations made in the Appropriations Act. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 980, art. V, at 7729. The Texas Surplus Property Agency receives no appropriation under the current Appropriations Act. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 980, at 7496-7499 (recapitulation of appropriations made to executive and administrative departments and agencies). Therefore, the rider you ask about does not control the transfer of funds from your agency. But see Attorney General Opinion JM-479 (1986) (money collected by the Surplus Property Agency must be deposited in the state treasury and appropriated by the legislature before it may be expended). Cf. Attorney General Opinion JM-417 (1985) (reimbursement requirement to general revenue fund for state retirement contributions or salaries paid from federal or private grants).

You also ask whether the Texas Surplus Property Agency may purchase workers' compensation insurance. The legislature requires that the state be a self-insurer. V.T.C.S. art. 8309g, § 2. Therefore, a state agency may not purchase workers' compensation insurance. Attorney General Opinion H-681 (1975). The Texas Surplus Property Agency is a state agency. Attorney General Opinion JM-445 (1986). Therefore, the Texas Surplus Property Agency may not purchase workers' compensation insurance.

Apparently you ask whether a state agency may purchase workers' compensation insurance because you assume that a state employee could not receive workers' compensation payments if the fund that pays his salary and benefits were insufficient to pay a workers' compensation claim. See art. 8309g (providing for workers' compensation benefits for state employees). That assumption is incorrect. As we pointed out before, all workers' compensation payments to state employees are made out of money appropriated to the Attorney General's office for the purpose. The source of that money is the general revenue fund. The rider that you ask about merely requires other funds to reimburse the general revenue fund for workers' compensation payments already paid by this office. It does not change the fact that, unless specifically exempted, all state employees are entitled to workers' compensation benefits under article 8309g. See V.T.C.S. art. 8309g, § 1(2) (exemptions). We do not read the rider as attempting to change article 8309g. If it did attempt to do so, it would be an invalid attempt to amend general legislation. Therefore, although the rider in question may cause a state agency or other unit of state government to be accountable to general revenue, it does not exclude any state employee from coverage under article 8309g.

SUMMARY

A rider that requires other funds to reimburse the general revenue fund for workers' compensation payments is valid. That rider does not affect the Texas Surplus Property Agency. A state agency has no authority to purchase workers' compensation insurance. Unless specifically exempted, all state employees are eligible for workers' compensation benefits under article 8309g, V.T.C.S.

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General

MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General

ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Sarah Woelk
Assistant Attorney General

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1986 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.