Judge sanctions Weinberger for noncooperation with insurer

Jennifer Nelson
September 17, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge in Hammond has entered a default against former ear, nose and throat doctor Mark Weinberger and other defendants for their noncooperation with his medical malpractice insurance company regarding hundreds of pending malpractice claims.

U.S. Judge Jon E. DeGuilio ordered the default against Weinberger, The Nose and Sinus Center LLC, The Merrillville Center for Advanced Surgery LLC, and Subspecialty Centers of America LLC Sept. 12 after considering whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Andrew Rodovich’s recommendation that default judgment be entered against the Weinberger defendants.

The Medical Assurance Company Inc. sought discovery sanctions against those defendants stemming from Weinberger’s constant refusal to answer questions during deposition. Weinberger repeatedly asserted the Fifth Amendment to all 344 questions, including those about his background and education. After a warning in 2011 from the court that refusal to provide substantive responses would result in severe sanctions, the Weinberger defendants said they would cooperate. However, the defendants continued to assert the Fifth Amendment to the amended discovery responses.

The defendants claimed they would answer questions after Weinberger’s criminal trial wrapped up. He recently pleaded guilty to 22 counts. His plea is pending before Chief Judge Philip Simon, with sentencing set for Oct. 12.

The Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund and Weinberger’s former patients who are pursuing malpractice claims against him – as well as the Weinberger defendants – objected to Rodovich’s report and recommendation. The non-Weinberger defendants believe the entry of default judgment would prejudice them more than Weinberger, and they sought clarification that the default judgment wouldn’t terminate the duty to defend or for the judge to instead impose lesser sanctions.

DeGuilio decided to impose lesser sanctions. He noted that the intent of the Weinberger defendants’ conduct so far has been to delay litigation rather than to assert constitutional privilege in good faith. While Weinberger has the right to assert the privilege and refuse some testimony, he has yet to provide a justification for a blanket claim of privilege, even on questions that have no bearing on the criminal charges, DeGuilio wrote.

The sanction will prevent them from participating in the case in any way “by treating them as if they had never appeared at all, and would also be consistent with other enumerated sanctions, such as ‘prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defense, or from introducing designated matters in evidence,’” he wrote.  

DeGuilio also ordered the Weinberger defendants, their attorney or both to pay reasonable expenses, including attorney fees caused by their failure to comply with the court’s discovery orders.

That Weinberger has pleaded guilty does not justify relief from the sanctions, he wrote, as it doesn’t make up for the repeated bad faith misuse of the Fifth Amendment, and the defendants have already once misrepresented their intent to provide discovery responses. There is also a chance that Simon will not accept the plea agreement and the criminal proceedings will continue beyond October.

The order came in The Medical Assurance Company Inc. v. Mark S. Weinberger, M.D., et al., 4:06-CV-117.



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  2. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  3. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  4. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  5. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well