Texas Senate Bill SB312

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Filed: 11/21/08
• Out of Senate Committee: 4/20/09
• Voted on by Senate: 5/1/09
• Out of House Committee: 5/21/09

Caption

Relating to the regulation and certification of medical examiners and the conduct of autopsy and inquest investigations by justices of the peace and medical examiners; providing penalties.

Impact

The implementation of SB312 will significantly amend the procedures and authority under which medical examiners operate in Texas. It mandates that counties with populations exceeding one million establish offices of medical examiners. This could lead to both enhanced oversight of death investigations and potential improvements in public trust regarding the handling of sensitive cases such as unexplained deaths or homicides. Additionally, the bill specifies that medical examiners may charge reasonable fees for certain services, which could impact budget considerations for counties involved in these investigations.

Summary

SB312 aims to regulate and certify medical examiners in Texas, updating the Code of Criminal Procedure to clarify the conduct of autopsy and inquest investigations. The bill establishes clear definitions for terms such as 'autopsy' and 'inquest,' ensuring a standardized approach to death investigations. Medical examiners will be required to possess certain qualifications, specifically board certification in forensic pathology, which is intended to facilitate more effective and reliable death investigations across the state. By providing a structured framework, SB312 seeks to improve the quality and consistency of forensic services.

Contention

While supporters argue that SB312 will enhance the professionalism and accountability of medical examiners, concerns arise regarding the potential for increased costs to counties and taxpayers. Opponents worry that the stipulation for board certification might create a shortage of qualified medical examiners, particularly in rural areas. Those against the bill also voice apprehensions that mandatory fee structures could disincentivize needed investigations. Overall, the balance between improved procedural rigor and budgetary implications remains a central point of contention as the bill progresses.