CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
Civil rights suit to be filed in eye-gouging case
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - The lawyers for a mental patient who gouged out his eyes while in city care and was later billed $2.2 million for room and board said they would file a federal civil rights lawsuit against the District today, escalating an already ugly legal battle.
Frank Harris Jr. plucked his eyeballs out in the midst of a violent delusion in early 2003, while he was supposed to be guarded by staff at St. Elizabeths hospital.
A few weeks after Janice Motley, his longtime family friend and guardian, filed a negligence lawsuit against St. Elizabeths, the city presented her with the $2.2 million bill it
said covered his meals and accommodations dating back to the 1980s.
Motley’s and Harris’ lawyers have lobbied Mayor Adrian Fenty’s administration to drop the bill, calling it an obvious attempt to quash litigation for the city’s own negligence. But the Fenty administration has claimed that it’s bound by law to recover back bills when previously poor patients come into money — like a lucrative negligence suit.
Frustrated, the lawyers told The Examiner that they would file a federal civil rights suit today, alleging the city is “selectively enforcing” laws that allow it to recoup old bills from erstwhile poor patients who obtain money.
“It defies credulity,” lawyer Joseph Cammarata wrote to Peter Nickles, Fenty’s lawyer. “We doubt that any bill would have been sent if Mr. Harris did not file a lawsuit.”
Harris has been supported by D.C. Council Member Phil Mendelson, D-at large, and Chair Vincent Gray, D. Both council members reminded Fenty that he had blasted the previous mayor when the city sent backdated bills to the families of those who had died at St. Elizabeths when they were threatening wrongful death lawsuits.
Mendelson on Tuesday told The Examiner he was disgusted that the Harris case had been allowed to degenerate so far.
“The Mayor’s refusal to disavow the original bill has led directly to a challenge based on constitutional grounds,” Mendelson wrote in an e-mail to The Examiner. “This administration and their lawyers managed to jump from the frying pan, directly into the fire.”
Melissa Merz, spokeswoman for the Attorney General’s Office, said that Cammarata’s claims of selective enforcement were “simply untrue.”
“Our preliminary research has identified 22 instances in which the District billed forensic patients,” Merz wrote in an e-mail to The Examiner.
bmyers@dcexaminer.com
smccabe@dcexaminer.com
Comments from Examiner Readers
8:46 AM MST on Thu., Oct. 11, 2007 re: "Gray blasts attorney general’s attempt to collect from mental patient"
Report as inappropriate
3:05 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007
re: "Gray blasts attorney general’s attempt to collect from mental patient"
Report as inappropriate
4:43 PM MST on Thu., Aug. 30, 2007
re: "Gray blasts attorney general’s attempt to collect from mental patient"
Report as inappropriate
2:20 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 29, 2007
re: "Gray blasts attorney general’s attempt to collect from mental patient"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
So, this criminally insane person who's too poor to afford his own care and too violent to be out on the streets is put into a hospital, given free room, free meals, free meds, and free phone. He voluntarily goes off his own meds and decides that it's a good idea to gouge out his own eyes. Where was this "lifelong friend" when he was out commiting crimes? Where was this "guardian" when he decided to go off his meds and wreak havoc in the city? And so now, the mayor's efforts to collect what it cost to care for this person are "hard to justify" when this person decides to sue the city because someone wasn't watching him gouge his eyes out??? The only thing that's "hard to justify" is our tax dollars going to pay off this shady lawyer and this "lifelong friend" AFTER our tax dollars have already paid for his care, meds, housing, and food! This is a crock and the only thing Fenty should be ashamed of is allowing himself to be bullied into backing down from a TOTALLY justified counter
121 agree | 114 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Why shouldn't Mr. Harris be able to recover what the District owes him? The man has a mental illness, and due to the District's incompetence, he's been stuck in an institution for decades where he receives substandard care. Due to the District's own incompetence, this man gouged his eyes out. And now they want to bill him for these supposed "services?" Is there any more degrading way that the D.C. government could spit on a man and take away his dignity? Kudos to Vincent Gray and Phil Mendelson for sticking up for him.
146 agree | 128 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Before taking sides, let's look at the facts. 1) Why is Phil Mendelson interested in this case? The District does this everyday. Why this one? Because Joseph Cammarata and his law firm are contributors to his campaign. 2) When did Ms. Motley become Mr. Harris' guardian? Probably, I am willing to bet, after Mr. Harris gouged his eyes out. 3) Why is Mr. Joseph Cammarata running to the press now? This case appears to be 4 years old. Why now? Because he is not going to get a penny if the District bills Mr. Harris. 4) Why do they want the money? To benefit Mr. Harris or to benefit Mr. Joseph Cammarata and Ms. Motley? Mr. Harris is a criminal committed to DC's care. He can't leave the institution without a court order. He is not going anywhere. See this for what it is, a corrupt politician taking care of the interests of the ambulance chasing lawyer that contributes to his campaign and not of the taxpayers of the District of Columbia.
139 agree | 134 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This is nothing but an illicit attempt by Mr. Cammarata, the plaintiff's attorney and his political croney to taint the jury in a lawsuit that has absolutely no merit in an attempt to recover legal fees that he would otherwise be unable to recover. Mr. Harris was a criminal found not guilty by reason of insanity and ordered to be committed to St. Elizabeth's in lieu of prison. He would not see a dime of any money that a jury awarded. The money would go to Mr. Cammarata and his firm that do not care anything about Mr. Harris and Ms. Motley their puppet guardian who has no relation to Mr. Harris whatsoever. Why doesn't the Examiner ask Mr. Cammarata and Mr. Mendelson when it became District policy to violate the law which states that forensic patients "shall be billed" for the services provided to them by the taxpayers in order to pay back campaign contributors of Council Members.
146 agree | 121 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree