Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but I didn't want to read thru what looked to be 5 pages of bickering and nitpicking semantics. The original articles and citations posted don't seem to differentiate between charging the victim, which I think we all can agree is not a good approach, and charging their insurance company if it will cover it. (To cynical me, it seemed to purposely Avoid the differentiation - If I've killed countless ants over the years and one sole butterfly that flew into my windshield, it's still an accurate statement to say I've "killed thousands of ants and butterflies," but it hardly leaves an accurate impression of my behavior.) Perhaps there are extenuating details I don't know about, but if the victim both has insurance that will cover the test(s) and agrees to seeking their payment, that strikes me as nothing but good fiscal stewardship for the town.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian