ILNews

Justices to answer whether fund can pursue claim against an insurer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted a certified question from a federal court in northern Indiana in a case filed by the Indiana Patient Compensation Fund against a professional liability insurance provider involving claims against former doctor Mark Weinberger.

The question the justices must answer is: “Does Indiana law allow the Patient’s Compensation Fund to pursue a claim against an insurer for the insurer’s breach of its duty of good faith to its insured, through the doctrine of equitable subrogation?”

In its complaint, the IPCF alleges that The Medical Assurance Company Inc. failed to settle claims against Weinberger and the entities he owned and engaged in acts or omissions that were detrimental to Weinberger and those entities as well as the fund. More than 350 medical malpractice claims have been lodged against the former ear, nose and throat doctor, accusing him of performing unnecessary surgeries. The Indiana Patient Compensation Fund has had to pay out on some of the judgments reached against Weinberger.

Weinberger was sanctioned in September 2012 for not cooperating with Medical Assurance. Weinberger repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment during depositions, refusing to answer questions. He pleaded guilty in 2012 to multiple counts of health care benefit fraud and was sentenced to 84 months in prison.

Briefs from both parties regarding the certified question must be filed by July 28.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  2. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  3. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  4. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  5. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.

ADVERTISEMENT