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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT