Daviess County Detention Center threatens lawsuit after state refuses to reimburse inmate medical costs

Daviess County’s detention center says it may sue the Kentucky Department of Corrections after the state declined to reimburse the jail for an inmate’s medical expenses it paid directly, according to a report by WKYT on June 26, 2026.

WKYT reported that the Daviess County Detention Center is weighing a lawsuit tied to what it described as large medical costs for a state inmate. The jail’s position, as characterized in the report, is that the state should reimburse the local facility for expenses connected to incarcerating and providing care for the inmate.

The dispute is tied to the operational and financial relationship between local detention centers and the state correctional system, where medical treatment costs can become a budget issue for county facilities depending on how reimbursement rules apply. In this case, the jail says it paid the costs and did not receive reimbursement from the Department of Corrections, prompting the threatened court action.

A lawsuit would shift the question from administrative billing to legal interpretation of Kentucky’s reimbursement expectations and any governing agreements or policies on who bears responsibility for medical expenses when the state has custody of an inmate housed in a county facility.

The report did not provide additional detail on the underlying medical circumstances, the dollar amount, or the specific procedural steps the jail has taken to request payment, nor did it indicate what timeline the jail would follow if it files. It also did not include an on-the-record response from the Department of Corrections in the details described.

If the detention center proceeds, the litigation would likely focus on whether reimbursement was required under the applicable statutes, department policies, or intergovernmental arrangements, and whether the state’s refusal was justified based on those rules. That process could affect other counties that rely on similar arrangements for inmates housed in local facilities.

For county officials and taxpayers, the immediate practical impact is the potential for unbudgeted costs to move through the courts rather than being settled administratively. For the state, the case would test how the Department of Corrections’ cost-sharing responsibilities for inmate healthcare are applied in real billing disputes.