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.



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. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.