ILNews

Weinberger owes patient $150k for unnecessary surgery

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Dr. Mark S. Weinberger, who fled the country for several years after performing numerous unnecessary surgeries on his patients’ sinuses, must pay one patient $150,000 on a medical malpractice claim.

Gloria Gill is just one of many of Weinberger’s former patients who sued him for medical malpractice. Weinberger, an ear, nose and throat doctor in northwest Indiana, disappeared while on vacation in the Mediterranean with his family in 2004 and was apprehended in the Italian Alps in 2009.

In 2003, Weinberger told Gill she needed sinus surgery to relieve her migraines and congestion problems. He made it seem like he performed seven types of surgeries on her sinuses; in fact, like with other patients, he merely drilled two holes in the sinuses. Her pain got worse and she eventually stopped seeing Weinberger in April 2004 for follow-up appointments because he was not receptive to her issues.

A medical review panel found Weinberger failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care and Gill sued in March 2010. Testimony at the trial showed that Weinberger had shipped camping equipment to his office, seemed nervous and may have fled because of the mounting medical malpractice suits against him. The jury awarded her $150,000.

The appellate court held in Mark S. Weinberger, M.D., et al. v. Gloria Gill, 45A05-1203-CT-107, the trial court didn’t err in denying Weinberger’s motion for a judgment on the evidence regarding Gill’s claim of patient abandonment, citing Weinberger v. Boyer, 956 N.E.2d 1095 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), which also involved a patient suing for medical malpractice.

The judges also held that the testimony concerning Weinberger’s odd behavior and subsequent flight was relevant admissible evidence because it established an inference of consciousness of guilt. It does not matter that Gill stopped seeing Weinberger before he fled.

Lastly, Weinberger waived for review his claim that the court erred in letting Gill testify that she felt humiliated and angry when she learned Weinberger had disappeared in the middle of the night. Weinberger failed to object to Gill’s testimony at trial.

 

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. @ President Snow, like they really read these comments or have the GUTS to show what is the right thing to do. They are just worrying about planning the next retirement party, the others JUST DO NOT CARE about what is right. Its the Good Ol'Boys - they do not care about the rights of the mother or child, they just care about their next vote, which, from what I gather, the mother left the state of Indiana because of the domestic violence that was going on through out the marriage, the father had three restraining orders on him from three different women, but yet, the COA judges sent a strong message, go ahead men put your women in place, do what you have to do, you have our backs... I just wish the REAL truth could be told about this situation... Please pray for this child and mother that God will some how make things right and send a miracle from above.

  2. I hear you.... Us Christians are the minority. The LGBTs groups have more rights than the Christians..... How come when we express our faith openly in public we are prosecuted? This justice system do not want to seem "bias" but yet forgets who have voted them into office.

  3. Perhaps the lady chief justice, or lady appellate court chief judge, or one of the many female federal court judges in Ind could lead this discussion of gender disparity? THINK WITH ME .... any real examples of race or gender bias reported on this ezine? But think about ADA cases ... hmmmm ... could it be that the ISC actually needs to tighten its ADA function instead? Let's ask me or Attorney Straw. And how about religion? Remember it, it used to be right up there with race, and actually more protected than gender. Used to be. Patrick J Buchanan observes: " After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” Harry Truman said we were. In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests." http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#q3yVdhxDVMMxiCmy.99 I could link to any of my supreme court filings here, but have done that more than enough. My case is an exclamation mark on what PJB writes. BUT not in ISC, where the progressives obsess on race and gender .... despite a lack of predicate acts in the past decade. Interested in reading more on this subject? Search for "Florida" on this ezine.

  4. Great questions to six jurists. The legislature should open a probe to investigate possible government corruption. Cj rush has shown courage as has justice Steven David. Who stands with them?

  5. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

ADVERTISEMENT