ILNews

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.

 

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT