Daviess County officials say they are considering legal action against the Kentucky Department of Corrections after the state declined to reimburse the county for more than $290,000 in medical expenses incurred by a state inmate housed at the Daviess County Detention Center.
County Attorney John Burlew and Daviess County Jailer Art Maglinger said the dispute centers on whether extensive medical treatment provided to a state inmate falls under Kentucky law requiring the state to pay for care that goes beyond “routine care and diagnostic services.”
According to correspondence provided by Burlew, the county is seeking reimbursement of $291,675.71 for medical expenses associated with a state inmate. In a July 2025 email to the Department of Corrections, Burlew argued the treatments were clearly beyond what most people would consider routine medical care. The department declined the request. In a response referenced by Burlew, the Department of Corrections stated that a Court of Appeals ruling “does not change the position of the Department of Corrections in this matter.”
Burlew said the inmate was serving a state sentence while being housed in Daviess County.
“The statute says that for state inmates that are housed at DCDC, the state owes if it goes beyond routine medical care,” Burlew said. “In my opinion, that means something beyond checkups, stitches, or treatment for a cold. Treatment for a medical condition this serious is not routine in any way.”
The disagreement comes amid a broader statewide dispute over medical costs for state inmates housed in county jails.
Last July, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed a Franklin Circuit Court ruling in favor of several counties, jailers, and the Kentucky Jailers Association in a lawsuit against the Department of Corrections. The lawsuit challenged the state’s interpretation of what constitutes “routine care” under Kentucky law.
The Court of Appeals found that the Department of Corrections had adopted an overly broad definition of routine care that included virtually every medical, dental, or psychological procedure not requiring hospitalization or general anesthesia. The court ruled that the interpretation was contrary to the plain language of state law and improperly shifted costs to counties.
The lawsuit was filed by Campbell, Kenton, Boyd, Marion, and Whitley counties, along with the Kentucky Jailers Association. The Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed a lower court ruling requiring the Department of Corrections to comply with statutory requirements involving inmate classification and medical reimbursement.
Burlew said Daviess County was not a party to that lawsuit, but he believes the ruling provides important guidance for how the law should be interpreted.
“What it does do, in my mind at least, is it sort of lays down the law where the Court of Appeals feels what goes beyond routine,” Burlew said. “It basically tells the DOC, ‘Your definition of routine is way out in left field.’”
After reviewing the ruling, Burlew contacted Department of Corrections officials and requested that they reconsider Daviess County’s reimbursement claim. He said the state declined.
“I sent an email to the lawyer at DOC and said, ‘In light of this decision, I’m assuming your position is going to change on our case,’” Burlew said. “They emailed back and basically said no.”
Burlew said letters seeking a resolution have also been sent to the commissioner of the Department of Corrections and the governor’s office.
“I’ve written the commissioner, and I’ve written the governor,” Burlew said. “The lawyer responded, but the commissioner did not, and the governor did not.”
Maglinger said the issue is not unique to Daviess County and affects county jails across Kentucky.
“All 120 counties are impacted by something similar to that,” Maglinger said. “If you put a price tag on all the bills that the state should be paying for medical, it would be several millions of dollars.”
Maglinger said county jails routinely house state inmates while they await classification and transfer to state facilities. While counties receive a daily payment from the state, he said major medical expenses can quickly exceed those reimbursements.
In Daviess County’s case, Maglinger said the disputed medical costs were unbudgeted and ultimately become the responsibility of local taxpayers if reimbursement is denied.
“You can’t really budget for that kind of thing,” he said. “The county is responsible for 100% of that if it exceeds our medical cost pool.”
Burlew said the county’s options are becoming limited.
“We have not filed a lawsuit yet,” Burlew said. “We’ve just been trying to negotiate with them.”
Asked what comes next, Burlew said litigation is increasingly likely.
“We’re looking at suing them,” he said. “We’re looking at doing the same thing that Campbell County did. I don’t know what our alternative is at this point.”
