For once, a good court ruling
If people's accounts are overdrawn, then the bank is perfectly entitled to charge fees as previously agreed, which usually means the fees are deducted from the next credit to the account. There's absolutely no basis to question this. It doesn't matter that these disabled and/or seniors are "poor": an overdrawn account means that they're using money that doesn't belong to them, and the bank will charge a fee. The money belongs to the other depositors at the bank. The fee is partly to discourage overdrafts, and partly to compensate for the managers' time in reconciling accounts. The bank is entitled to charge that fee based on the agreement the customers voluntarily accepted when opening the accounts. As with all things, if you don't like the conditions, then take your business elsewhere.
This all started become some twit evidently saw new money in his account, which he should have realized was more than what ought to have been. Instead of notifying the bank of a probable error, he was stupid enough to debit more than what he really had. It reminds me of the idiot family that went to an ATM that suddenly started spitting out tens of thousands of dollars. Instead of bagging and returning it, they treated it as having fallen from heaven and started spending it all. But don't be fooled: banks will track down the error, and the family was caught and ordered to pay it back. I can't find an article on that American family, but here's one in England that similarly burned through other depositors' money, and they were properly jailed for it.
It may start with a bank's error, but a bank's error does not force people to act irresponsibly. Some might say this "disabled man" had cause to complain, because the bank charged him a fee after reversing their error. However, he made the serious error: he should have double-checked how much his account should have, rather than treating it like Christmas.