ILNews

Disgraced 'Nose Doctor' keeping lawyers busy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Authorities found fugitive Indiana doctor Mark Weinberger camped in deep snow on a mountain in the Italian Alps in December 2009. Now attorneys are digging through the resulting avalanche of criminal charges and more than 350 malpractice lawsuits.

The complexities and volume of the work has tested the resources of two firms handling the bulk of the action and given young and veteran malpractice attorneys unprecedented opportunities to hone their jury trial skills.
 

weinberger-mark-mug.jpg Dr. Mark Weinberger vanished from a successful ear, nose and throat practice in 2004 and was found in Italy five years later.

Weinberger once was known as the jet-setting “Nose Doctor” of Merrillville, but he’s since been dubbed “America’s worst doctor” by some news organizations. Weinberger isn’t saying why he abandoned his thriving ear, nose and throat practice, according to attorneys who’ve deposed him for the first trials involving the malpractice suits. They say he isn’t saying anything.

“I would say of the thousands of questions asked of him, the only one he answered is ‘State your name,’” said Barry Rooth, a name partner of the Merrillville law firm Theodoros & Rooth. Weinberger takes the Fifth on subsequent questions such as where he went to school, attorneys who’ve deposed him said.

Weinberger’s defense attorney James Hough, of Merrillville, responded to requests for comment with an email. “At the present time, as these cases continue to be litigated, I believe it would be better for me to resist discussing the cases or our procedure for defending them.”

Rooth said that in 2004, he received referrals about potential malpractice suits involving Weinberger patients. Rooth suspected Weinberger might be performing unnecessary surgeries or outmoded ones, including drilling holes in patients’ sinuses, that might have worsened their conditions. Rooth said Weinberger disappeared a few months after the law firm requested additional patient records.


rooth-phil-mug.jpg Rooth

While a fugitive, Weinberger was charged with 22 federal counts of insurance fraud alleging that he billed his malpractice carrier for surgeries that he didn’t perform totaling about $350,000. He pleaded guilty and agreed to serve a four-year sentence, but a federal judge rejected the deal.

Meanwhile, Weinberger’s malpractice carrier has sued him, claiming he was uncooperative and his actions void their duty to defend. Weinberger in turn sued the carrier, claiming bad faith. Still to be untangled in the federal courts in northern Indiana is who will pay mounting judgments. The Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund, which pays malpractice judgments up to $1 million above the insurance cap of $250,000, also is involved in the Weinberger cases in federal court.

Ultimately, Cohen & Malad in Indianapolis joined as co-counsel with Theodoros & Rooth as the malpractice claims poured in. Together, they are representing 297 claims against Weinberger, only two of which have been settled, both involving child patients. Seven have gone to trial – all with judgments for the plaintiffs – and 288 more cases are pending. The remainder of cases filed to date are represented by law firm Kenneth J. Allen & Assoc.

Plaintiffs have won judgments ranging from $40,000 to $390,000 and the average is about $177,000, according to Cohen & Malad partner David Allen.

‘Piece of Indiana history’

The load of Weinberger cases has given Cohen & Malad’s young lawyers rare experience. “Because of the number of cases,” said partner David Cutshaw, “young lawyers have to get in there and mix it up, and I think that’s good.”

Attorney Kelley Johnson is in her seventh year at Cohen & Malad. With her concentration in business litigation, she’d never had to present to a jury until the firm started handling the Weinberger cases. She’s been second chair in some trials so far, and she’s on the docket as lead counsel for two trials scheduled next year.

“No matter how long somebody practices, to get up and really think on your feet, defending those hearsay objections, willing the jury or getting the jury to understand your case and be on your side, that’s experience that’s hard to come by these days,” Johnson said.

Rarer still is the unprecedented scope of the body of litigation. “This is a piece of Indiana history,” she said. “To be able to work on this was just an absolute for me.”

Rooth, an attorney for about 29 years, said the Weinberger cases have sharpened his courtroom ability.

Because the defendant has been uncooperative, malpractice attorneys approach every case with the expectation that they will argue it before a jury.

Rooth usually tries one or two jury trials a year. He said he can expect to try 20 Weinberger cases in 2013.

“I’m afforded the opportunity to practice the art of litigation,” Rooth said. “The word I have for this is gratitude; gratitude to practice my art.” He’s been able to achieve a level of proficiency in preparing and trying cases that he would not have appearing on a more sporadic basis.

It takes a team

At Cohen & Malad, Allen, Cutshaw and Johnson work full time on Weinberger cases, and at least one other attorney works part time on them, Allen said. A full-time nurse assists with preparation and research, as do two paralegals.

At Theodoros & Rooth, Rooth is assisted by partner Perry Theodoros, attorney Holly Wojcik, three paralegals and two assistants who primarily are responsible for handling Weinberger cases.

About 200 cases are in various stages of the medical review board process. About 70 are in court with trial dates set or awaiting trial setting, Cutshaw said.

Allen said communication between the firms and assignments of specific duties and comprehensive case management have been a key part of dealing with the caseload.

“It’s amazing the amount of correspondence, pleadings, conferences with clients, depositions, and submissions that are written and submitted to the medical review panel,” Johnson said. “We have deadlines literally every day.”

And while each case against Weinberger has “similar scenes and frames,” as Rooth put it, each also has its own set of facts, and attorneys must prepare accordingly.

But the cases also have elements of repetition: deposing Weinberger, who takes the Fifth; and deposing typically the same small circle of expert defense witnesses.

“We have been mindful of rotating attorneys through those depositions so the same person isn’t always taking depositions or going to trial just to avoid some of those burnout issues,” Allen said.

Looking ahead

Attorneys said they hope global resolution of the Weinberger cases is possible, and some developments suggest such an outcome might be achievable.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Rodovich in the Lafayette Division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in April recommended a special master be appointed to deal with the pending cases, and a ruling is anticipated.

The special master was requested on behalf of Indiana Department of Insurance Commissioner Stephen Robertson. A special master would have powers from the court to expedite resolution of the outstanding Weinberger cases through mediation. The patient compensation fund says that without a special master, disposing of the cases could take five to 13 years if all went to trial.

“The commissioner would really like to see all these cases resolved as quickly as possible,” said Tina Korty, general counsel for the Indiana Department of Insurance, which administers the fund.

It’s a sentiment the attorneys share.

“I think everybody should seriously take off the boxing gloves and resolve this and settle these cases,” Cutshaw said. “There’s a lot of money being paid to defend these cases.”•

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT