And Rightly So!

Is this an intimidation tactic?

WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 — It all started after Frank Harris Jr. gouged his eyes out.

For 34 years, Mr. Harris has been a patient at a city-run psychiatric hospital here after being declared insane by a court. In March 2003, despite complaining that voices in his head were telling him to take his eyes out, and despite a doctor’s warning that he be kept in restraints, Mr. Harris’s hands were left untied briefly, and he acted on his impulse.

So, in October 2004, Mr. Harris’s guardian, Janice Motley, sued the city for negligence. About a year later, city officials sent her a bill for $2.2 million.

Citing a rule adopted in 1955 that they said required them to recoup costs if an indigent patient had a change in financial circumstances, they said that if she won her case, she would owe the city the cost of Mr. Harris’s room and board.

So the people who cannot pay for medical care can reap the gold mines of lawsuit riches and not have to pay their medical bills?

Such regulations, known as offset rules, are under attack around the country, with lawyers arguing that they are punitive, violate the First Amendment by limiting the rights of some people to sue, and create a chilling effect, as lawyers are less willing to take cases when they know state or city officials will try to cut into any potential payments.

Since when is suing others a First Amendment right?