Weinberger cases settle for $55M

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hundreds of patients of a former Merrillville ear, nose and throat doctor serving a seven-year federal sentence for health-care fraud will be compensated for their medical malpractice claims through a $55 million settlement.

The Indiana Department of Insurance and two law firms that represent 282 malpractice claimants announced the settlement in a joint statement Monday. The patients represent the majority of more than 350 malpractice claims against former Dr. Mark Weinberger, who billed himself as “The Nose Doctor.” The settlement involves patients represented by Cohen & Malad LLP of Indianapolis and Theodoros & Rooth P.C. of Merrillville.

Weinberger was sentenced in October after he pleaded guilty to 22 counts of health care fraud. Weinberger eluded authorities for years after initial malpractice claims were filed in 2004. He was discovered hiding in the Italian Alps in 2009.

Patients accused Weinberger of performing unnecessary or outmoded surgeries, including drilling holes in patients’ sinuses, which worsened their conditions. Weinberger refused to answer questions in the civil cases, attorneys said.

“I am pleased that, after over eight years, the parties were able to overcome the roadblocks that had been preventing settlement,” Indiana Department of Insurance Commissioner Stephen W. Robertson said in a statement.

The settlement was signed Monday by Lake Superior Judge John Pera.

“Coming to a resolution of the cases with the department goes a long way toward closure for Dr. Weinberger’s patients,” said David Cutshaw of Cohen & Malad.

Under the settlement, the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund will provide $55 million to pay malpractice claims. Cutshaw and Barry Rooth of Theodoros & Rooth said Monday that litigation against Weinberger's medical malpractice insurance carrier will continue.

“There are limits of liability that are still in our view available,” Rooth said in an interview.

Cutshaw said plaintiffs signed off on settlements that were reviewed by an ethicist who assigned value to each claim based on certain objective factors. Claimants were aware of the total settlement, how much they would receive and how much others, identified by initials, would receive.

“On behalf of our clients, I’d like to express our appreciation to Commissioner Robertson for his willingness to take the necessary and unprecedented steps to compensate Weinberger’s many victims,” Rooth said in the statement. “It’s been a long road for them.”


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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

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

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues