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

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT