ILNews

Rehearings - 8/17/12

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

Former fugitive doctor enters guilty plea - IL Rehearing "Disgraced 'Nose Doctor' keeping lawyers busy" June 22-July 5, 2012

A former Merrillville ear, nose and throat doctor who eluded authorities for more than five years before his capture on a snowy Italian mountainside pleaded guilty to felony charges of insurance fraud July 23.

Mark Weinberger, 49, built a multi-million-dollar practice billing himself as “The Nose Doctor.” He abandoned the practice in 2004, disappearing while vacationing in Greece. He was captured in 2009 and extradited to the United States, where he had debts totaling millions of dollars and faces hundreds of malpractice claims.

Weinberger pleaded guilty before Chief Judge Philip Simon in the Hammond Division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. Sentencing is set for Oct. 12, and he faces up to 10 years in prison if Simon accepts the plea.

Simon told the Post-Tribune of Merrillville, “I’m virtually certain I’m going to accept the plea agreement.”

It’s the second time Weinberger has pleaded to the charges. Last year, Simon rejected a plea deal in which Weinberger would have served a four-year prison sentence. Weinberger is charged with 22 counts of insurance fraud alleging that he billed his malpractice carrier for surgeries that he didn’t perform totaling about $350,000.

Weinberger also faces more than 350 malpractice suits from former patients who claimed that Weinberger performed unnecessary or outmoded surgeries that might have worsened their conditions.

Separately, Weinberger’s malpractice carrier has sued him, claiming he was uncooperative and his actions void its duty to defend. Weinberger, in turn, sued the carrier, claiming bad faith. Still to be untangled in the federal courts 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.

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

– Dave Stafford

------------

AG: Parts of immigration law can’t stand - IL Rehearing "Indiana's immigraiton law reeling" July 6-19, 2012

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said July 31 that a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down most of a tough Arizona law will impact a similar immigration law signed by Gov. Mitch Daniels in 2011.

“Certain portions of the state law cannot stand,” Zoeller said in a statement announcing that provisions of SEA 590 allowing warrantless arrests cannot be defended.

Zoeller filed a brief to that effect in an ACLU case, Buquer v. Indianapolis, 1:11-CV-0708, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

“… the Attorney General recognizes the constitutional infirmities inherent in a warrantless arrest for a removal order, a notice of action, or the commission of an aggravated felony that would subject the arrestee to removal,” Zoeller wrote in the brief. “The Attorney General will submit the issue to the Court with the recommendation that a warrantless arrest under those circumstances is unconstitutional.”

The ACLU suit also challenged SEA 590’s criminalization of the use of consular-issued identification cards. Zoeller said an inference from Arizona, et al. v. United States, 11-182, that this portion of the law should be struck down was an improper reading of the SCOTUS decision.

“While the use of consular identification cards was not addressed in Arizona, (the state recognizes) the substantial questions about how far the Indiana legislature may go to criminalize purely private behavior … and how far the pre-emption doctrine can go toward defining what identification a State may recognize as valid for public and governmental purposes,” Zoeller wrote in the filing, leaving the question open for the court.

Zoeller also is defending the law in another case, Union Benefica Mexicana v. State, 2:11-CV-00482, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, which challenges two sections of the law: one that allows the Department of Workforce Development to file civil actions against employers for reimbursement of unemployment insurance if they knowingly employed illegal immigrants; and a second that prohibits someone from performing day labor without filing an attestation of employment authorization.

Zoeller said he will continue to defend that case in light of the Arizona ruling, but no brief has been filed in that matter because the case has been stayed.•

– Dave Stafford

Rehearings: Updates on issues previously reported in Indiana Lawyer. For copies of the original story, call our circulation department at 317-636-0200 with the title of the article and the issue date listed. Fee is $5 per story.
 

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. Im very happy for you, getting ready to go down that dirt road myself, and im praying for the same outcome, because it IS sometimes in the childs best interest to have visitation with grandparents. Thanks for sharing, needed to hear some positive posts for once.

  2. Been there 4 months with 1 paycheck what can i do

  3. our hoa has not communicated any thing that takes place in their "executive meetings" not executive session. They make decisions in these meetings, do not have an agenda, do not notify association memebers and do not keep general meetings minutes. They do not communicate info of any kind to the member, except annual meeting, nobody attends or votes because they think the board is self serving. They keep a deposit fee from club house rental for inspection after someone uses it, there is no inspection I know becausee I rented it, they did not disclose to members that board memebers would be keeping this money, I know it is only 10 dollars but still it is not their money, they hire from within the board for paid positions, no advertising and no request for bids from anyone else, I atteended last annual meeting, went into executive session to elect officers in that session the president brought up the motion to give the secretary a raise of course they all agreed they hired her in, then the minutes stated that a diffeerent board member motioned to give this raise. This board is very clickish and has done things anyway they pleased for over 5 years, what recourse to members have to make changes in the boards conduct

  4. Where may I find an attorney working Pro Bono? Many issues with divorce, my Disability, distribution of IRA's, property, money's and pressured into agreement by my attorney. Leaving me far less than 5% of all after 15 years of marriage. No money to appeal, disabled living on disability income. Attorney's decision brought forward to judge, no evidence ever to finalize divorce. Just 2 weeks ago. Please help.

  5. For the record no one could answer the equal protection / substantive due process challenge I issued in the first post below. The lawless and accountable only to power bureaucrats never did either. All who interface with the Indiana law examiners or JLAP be warned.

ADVERTISEMENT