ILNews

Weinberger seeks sentence of time served

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former Merrillville ear, nose and throat doctor Mark Weinberger on Monday asked a federal court to sentence him to time served for the 22 counts of health care fraud to which he pleaded guilty.

Chief Judge Philip Simon of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in Hammond will sentence Weinberger on Friday. In a sentencing memorandum filed Monday, Weinberger’s attorney Visvaldis Kupsis said the sentencing guideline range is 30 to 37 months in prison. Weinberger already has served more than 33 months, and adjusted for good behavior, he’s earned credit for 39 months served, Kupsis wrote.

Previously, Weinberger pleaded guilty to the charges and agreed to serve a four-year sentence. A federal judge rejected that plea agreement as too lenient.

Weinberger, who ran a multi-million-dollar practice billing himself as “The Nose Doctor,” was arrested in December 2009 after authorities found him camped in snow in the Italian Alps. He fled as malpractice claims mounted and had been on the run for more than three years, during which he was charged.

Separately, Weinberger also is a defendant in lawsuits involving more than 350 medical malpractice claims that allege he performed unnecessary and sometimes damaging sinus surgeries.

The sentencing memorandum says there’s no evidence that Weinberger committed fraud other than in the instances for which he was charged, and it casts doubt on other claims against him.

“Much has been made in the press regarding Dr. Weinberger’s case and his notoriety exceeds that of most criminal defendants. Numerous civil complaints have been filed and one could speculate that many of those are a direct result of that notoriety,” Kupsis wrote. “Regardless, Dr. Weinberger has also been punished for any incidence of negligence through monetary judgments, as well as his loss of practice and inability to further engage in the trade for which he was trained. As a result, these alleged deeds carry their own form of punishment and should not be for the court to decide in this criminal forum.”

Last month, U.S. Judge Jon E. DeGuilio in Hammond entered a default judgment against Weinberger and related entities for noncooperation in the medical malpractice litigation.

Weinberger’s medical malpractice carrier, the Medical Assurance Company Inc., sought discovery sanctions against Weinberger for his constant refusal to answer questions during deposition. Weinberger repeatedly asserted the Fifth Amendment to all 344 questions, including those about his background and education. After a warning in 2011 from the court that refusal to provide substantive responses would result in severe sanctions, Weinberger and defendants said they would cooperate. However, the defendants continued to assert the Fifth Amendment to the amended discovery responses. The defendants claimed they would answer questions after Weinberger’s criminal trial wrapped up.

In his sentencing memorandum, Kupsis writes that Weinberger worked his way up from kitchen orderly to cook at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago. The document also shed light on Weinberger’s life behind bars.

“Weinberger has taken some pride in being able to continuously hold down a job which subjects itself to the potential for derision from inmates as well as presents a challenge to prepare satisfactory meals with limited resources and time. His responsibilities include organizing and serving every meal … to the eighty-eight (88) fellow inmates in his unit.

Kupsis characterized Weinberger’s kitchen orderly duty as one that “must have been a humiliating situation for him.”

The memorandum also says Weinberger has tutored inmates studying for GEDs and introduced  a yoga program. He also “developed a curriculum through the religious services program which teaches philosophies of non-violence and alternative solutions to problems.”





 

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. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT