The story sounds like a script written for a TV drama: A fugitive doctor performs needless surgeries on innocent victims and narrowly evades authorities by escaping to the Italian Alps.

Sadly, for hundreds of sick people in Indiana, this story is all too real.

According to report in the Chicago Tribune, this week marked the start of a medical malpractice trial against Mark Weinberger, M.D., who faces malpractice charges from more than 300 unsatisfied former patients.

The malpractice trial was on hold for several years as authorities searched for Weinberger, who left the country in 2004 on the heels of an investigation into his medical practices.

He was considered a fugitive from justice until November 2009, when authorities found him living in a tent in the mountains of northern Italy.

While Weinberger was in hiding, he was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges that he over-billed insurance companies for surgeries he either didn’t perform or performed unnecessarily.

Further, Weinberger faces a 22-count criminal indictment, and, perhaps unsurprisingly, the Indiana Medical Licensing Board has revoked his medical license. To the chagrin of the parties in the civil trial, Weinberger will likely not appear in court for the current personal injury lawsuit as a result of the impending criminal case.

The plaintiff in this trial, William Boyer, alleges that Weinberger performed an unnecessary surgery on his nose, causing chronic pain and mental anguish. Further, Boyer claims that his experience has also made him fearful of other doctors.

According to the plaintiff’s attorney, Barry Rooth, Boyer visited Weinberger in hopes of curing his breathing troubles. However, the surgery did not work, and Boyer alleges that Weinberger drilled two holes in Boyer’s maxillary sinuses that shouldn’t be there.

Specifically, Boyer claims that Weinberger misread X-rays and a CT scan, thereby leading to a faulty recommendation of surgery. According to Boyer’s attorney, the plaintiff actually “had no disease in his sinuses,” rendering the subsequent surgery entirely unnecessary.

Reports indicate that the defense attorney has already admitted that Weinberger acted negligently in his care of Boyer, and a three-doctor panel also found that Weinberger committed medical malpractice.

So, the primary issue the court must resolve in this trial is the total amount of money Boyer can recover as a result of his injuries.

During jury selection, the plaintiff’s attorney hinted that Boyer would be seeking damages somewhere in the neighborhood of $1-5 million.

Of course, not every medical malpractice trial is fraught with tales of international fugitives. However, people are often injured as a result of poor medical treatment.

If you have suffered injuries from what you believe to be negative treatment, consider contacting a personal injury lawyer to learn your legal options.

A recent trip to the Dollar Tree proved far more expensive than a Philadelphia man expected when he was allegedly bitten by a furry critter hiding in the store’s shelves.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the unfortunate shopper, Bernard King, was at the discount store shopping for ribbon to help him wrap his granddaughter’s birthday present. As he poked around the shelves he disturbed a rat hiding among the merchandise.

The rat, showing cold disregard for the kindness of King’s grandfatherly purchase, allegedly latched onto King’s right index finger when he put his hand in a box of ribbons on the shelf. This incident ultimately led to King’s recent filing of a personal injury lawsuit.

Offering a frighteningly detailed depiction of the incident, King’s attorney added that, in addition to the “nasty bite” King received, “the rat didn’t disengage right away.” Further, according to his attorney, King had to “shake it off.”

After the rat bit King, the unfortunate shopping adventure took an even stranger turn when two Dollar Tree employees immediately ran over to assist the bitten man.

When the employees attempted to move another ribbon box on the same shelf, three other rodents leapt at the well-intentioned workers. According to reports, the assistant employee ran behind the manager after seeing that an entire nest of rats had taken up residence in the ribbon box.

In his complaint, King alleges that the attack resulted in a loss of the full use of his index finger.

In addition, King claims that the rat attack caused him to experience post-traumatic stress disorder. Explaining his ailments, King stated that any “reasonable person would have grotesque memories of this event.”

Before filing suit, King attempted to settle the matter out of court, but reports indicate that Dollar Tree officials were skeptical of the seriousness of the claim and refused to reach any settlement.

As a result, King has filed a personal injury lawsuit against the store, which claims that Dollar Tree negligently allowed a rat colony to develop in its ribbon box, that the manager on duty refused to give King a copy of the incident report, and that the manager also failed to give a copy of the incident report to the proper local health authorities.

While the odds of being bitten by a rat at a discount store are extremely low, animal bites of all types occur quite frequently. Further, animal bites can often result in serious medical complications, which may result in significant time away from work or large medical expenses.

If you have been the victim of an animal attack, consider contacting a personal injury lawyer to learn more about your legal options. You may be entitled to seek damages as a result of your injury.

Sometimes you’re the windshield, and sometimes you’re the horse.

This week, a Wisconsin woman filed a personal injury lawsuit against the owners of a reckless horse that allegedly ran into her car.

According to the Madison/St. Claire Record, the plaintiff, Melva Lee Yates, claims that she was driving her 1995 Pontiac Grand Am in late 2008 when a horse owned by the defendants charged into her vehicle.

The complaint, filed in St. Clair County Court, alleges that during the car accident Yates suffered injuries to her back, right knee, right hip, and other parts, as well as extensive pain and mental anguish. In addition, she claims that she had to miss several days of work as a result of her injuries.

Since Yates cannot sue the offending animal, she has filed a third-party negligence claim against the defendants, Gerald and Connie Cummings. In the complaint, Yates says she is seeking a judgment of over $200,000.

In order to make a valid negligence claim, Yates’ complaint alleges that the defendants were responsible for the animal and failed to keep it under control.

Specifically, the complaint says that the defendants negligently failed to keep their horse under control, failed to keep the animal properly corralled, and failed to take other measures that would have prevented the horse from battering the vehicle.

In order to secure a judgment for negligence against the defendants, Yates must prove several elements.

These elements include proving that the Cummings had a legal duty to control their horse, and that they breached this duty by failing to prevent the horse from striking the car. Moreover, Yates must also show that the horse caused her injuries, and that her injuries led to actual damages that the court will able to calculate.

According to one commenter, courts typically apply the standard of strict liability to animal injury claims.

In strict liability cases, the defendants are held liable if a certain act occurs, regardless of whether their actions meet the elements of negligence.

For example, in cases where a dangerous animal bites a person, the court holds the owners responsible even if their actions don’t meet the negligence standard because of the high likelihood of an attack.

In the Yates case, the court is not likely to apply a strict liability standard because horses rarely run into cars and cause injury. Since the owners had no reason to suspect the horse would behave violently, Yates will likely have to prove that they acted negligently in failing to keep their horse properly penned.

Unfortunately, animal attacks occur fairly often. If you have been the victim of an animal attack, even if it’s a simple dog bite, consider contacting a personal injury lawyer to learn more about your legal rights and options.

A former Department of Agriculture official who was fired as a result of unfair allegations by a controversial Internet figure may soon have her day in court.

Recently, Shirley Sherrod announced her intention to file a personal injury lawsuit against Andrew Breitbart, who posted a heavily edited video on his website that unfairly portrayed Sherrod as a racist. The portion of the video he posted showed Sherrod making comments about her initial reluctance to help a poor white farmer.

However, viewed in the context of her full speech, Sherrod clearly was not making racist statements. Rather, she was delivering a moving testimonial about the positive change in racial relationships she experienced through her work at the Department of Agriculture.

According to some experts, Sherrod may have a strong case against Breitbart, reports the Huffington Post. For starters, Sherrod experienced clear short-term damage from Breitbart’s irresponsible actions.

In the words of Professor Stephen Solomon, a First Amendment scholar at New York University, Sherrod “can probably prove some reputational injury in the legal sense, as she was fired and was depicted as a racist for a few days. That certainly hurt her reputation.”

Of course, there are some complications in the case that may prevent Sherrod from seeking damages. First, Sherrod’s reputation has been wholly restored after a media firestorm accused everyone from Breitbart to the Obama Administration of harming the innocent woman.

As Solomon observes, “I’d be surprised if there is any reasonable person now who believes that she’s a racist; in fact, much the contrary. She is written about with great respect.” As a result, it may be difficult for Sherrod to prove that her reputation suffered long-term damage.

Moreover, in order to win the case, Sherrod must prove both that the information Breitbart posted was false and that he deliberately posted such false information.

In his defense, Breitbart has claimed that he posted the portion of the video that he received from an anonymous source. Thus, he did not knowingly post a truncated version of the video, and thought he was posting the entire film.

In response, though, Sherrod can counter that he acted recklessly in posting what was obviously a heavily edited version of a much longer speech. At the very least, the irresponsible nature of Breitbart’s actions provide Sherrod ample hope for some legal relief.

Unfortunately, Sherrod’s nightmare is not an isolated incident. Across the country, many people are victims of false public allegations that unjustly damage their reputation. Further, most victims of character defamation do not have the power of a sympathetic national media to restore their reputation.

If you have been the victim of libel or slander, consider contacting a personal injury attorney to see if your claim has legal merit.

To help break up the thousands of gallons of oil in the gulf, BP has spent the past few months deploying chemical dispersants. The use of one particular dispersant, Corexit 9500, is the focus of a recent personal injury lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, claims that BP has discharged millions of gallons of toxic dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico, threatening to harm both residents and wildlife, according to a recap on Law.com.

The plaintiffs are particularly concerned with BP’s alleged tactic of spraying Corexit 9500 into the air from airplanes in the middle of the night. The plaintiffs claim that this chemical caused residents of the Gulf Coast to experience severe breathing and gastrointestinal problems.

According to reports, the plaintiffs allege that use of Corexit 9500 has led to more than a hundred emergency room visits for symptoms including nausea, dizziness, shortness of breath and extreme headaches. In addition, hundreds more people have allegedly visited doctors because they have experienced similar symptoms.

Wright v. BP, further alleges that BP used the toxic chemicals in an attempt to reduce the visible presence of the spilled oil.

Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that BP sprayed Corexit 9500 in order “to lessen the public reaction to the oil spill by forcing the oil to the bottom of the Gulf … and to hide the massive amounts of oil at the bottom of the Gulf.”

Further, the plaintiffs’ attorneys believe that BP’s use of toxic chemical dispersants, a controversial practice among a wide range of environmental activists, will cause more damage to the health of Gulf Coast residents than the oil spill itself.

The lawsuit also names Nalco, the corporation that manufactures Corexit 9500, as a defendant. Both BP and Nalco have been sued before over the chemical dispersants. In fact, a group of Louisiana oystermen filed a suit against the two companies last month because they alleged that the use of the chemical dispersant was four times as toxic as the spilled oil.

Perhaps in response to local complaints, BP stopped using chemical dispersants on July 15 when it successfully placed a cap on the broken well.

With regard to the offending chemical, the plaintiffs cite British law, which outlawed the use of Corexit 9500 in 1998 due to the chemical’s unwanted presence in the food chain.

In addition, the EPA suggested this spring that BP cease use of the chemical, but the EPA lacked authority to take concrete actions to prevent the chemical’s use. Of course, Nalco and the EPA may have failed to communicate, as Nalco’s website claims that all the ingredients of Corexit 9500 “have been extensively studied for many years and have been determined safe and effective by the EPA.”

Tragedy struck Greyhound, the nation’s largest intercity bus carrier, during a fatal crash in California last week.

Six people were killed and 20 others were wounded in the culimnation of a series of even deadly events, according to the California Highway Patrol.

The ill-fated Greyhound bus was traveling from Los Angeles to Sacramento, and carrying 36 passengers, according to a report in the LA Times.

At around 2:00 in the morning, a Chevrolet Trailblazer traveling north on California Highway 99 in Fresno made an abrupt left turn from the right hand lane. This maneuver led the car straight into the median rail, causing the SUV to roll over and block the left-hand lane. Tragically, all three women in the Trailblazer were killed.

Shortly after the SUV rolled over, the Greyhound approached in the left-hand lane of Highway 99. Reports indicate that the overturned Trailblazer probably didn’t have its lights on, so the Greyhound driver did not see the obstacle until it was too late.

After striking the overturned car, the Greyhound bus careened off the highway and fell down a 15-foot embankment, eventually coming to rest after hitting a eucalyptus tree. In the aftermath of the crash, photos revealed eucalyptus limbs sticking out of large holes in the shattered bus.

The impact of the crash destroyed the front end of the bus, which killed the bus driver, James Jewett, who had driven for 32 years for Greyhound without a single incident. Two other bus passengers died.

According to the Sacramento Bee, Greyhound released a statement after the crash praising Jewett as “an excellent driver with a clean driving record.” Greyhound also described the former driver as a “very well-respected member of the Greyhound family.”

In addition to the death of Jewett and the three women who were in the overturned Trailblazer, another man and woman who were passengers in the bus were killed. Both were over the age of 60.

While bus travel is becoming increasingly popular, especially as the cost of a plane ticket rises, bus accidents are surprisingly common occurrences. Reports indicate that the Sacramento area alone has seen four fatal bus accidents in the last ten years. Across the country, thousands of people are injured in bus accidents every year.

If you have been injured in a bus accident, an experienced personal injury attorney may be able to help you seek a remedy for your injury.

In disturbing news for one of baseball’s most iconic mascots, a 75-year-old woman recently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the Phillie Phanatic for his antics during a minor league game.

According to the Philadelphia Daily News, the plaintiff, Grace Crass, alleges that the giant, green, furry creature lumbered through the stands and stepped onto her legs during a game in Reading, Pennsylvania.

She further claims that the pressure of the famous mascot on her legs triggered her previously dormant arthritis. After the incident, she had to receive knee replacements, though it is questionable whether the mascot’s antics directly led to this procedure.

Crass is seeking more than $50,000 in damages due to sports spectator injury from multiple defendants, including the Philadelphia Phillies, the Reading Phillies, and Tom Burgoyne, the man inside the Phillie Phanatic costume on that fateful day.

The plaintiff’s attorney, John Speicher, has maintained a sense of humor about the lawsuit. He claims his friends have teased him that “this is like suing Santa Claus.”

In addition, the plaintiff’s personal injury attorney is concerned about the type of responses the Phanatic will offer to the claim. Speicher anticipates that the Phanatic, upon arrival at the deposition, will merely “stick his stomach and tongue out at me and not say anything.”

According to a study published in the Cardozo Law Review, the Phillie Phanatic has been sued more often than any other mascot affiliated with major league baseball. The mascot has been sued at least three times, including a personal injury lawsuit stemming from an incident where a fan received an overly aggressive hug from the giant green mascot.

However, the researchers were quick to observe that the Phillie Phanatic’s lengthy history of lawsuits is likely attributable to the mascot’s unusual longevity. Most teams change their mascots frequently over the course of a few decades, but the Phillie Phanatic has held on for a long time due to the character’s popularity with fans.

Another theory is that the mascot’s large, bulky suit prevents the man inside the costume from having full range of motion, leading to awkward, potentially dangerous falls.

Of course, the mascot is also known for his wild antics, and the Phanatic’s need to top previous frenzied displays of baseball fervor could also explain the occurrence of several personal injury lawsuits.

In defense of the embattled character, Bob Jarvis, a professor of sports law who penned the law review article on the big green mascot, claims that the “Phanatic is a classic character” who is “part of the game of baseball.”

The outcome of the pending legislation against the beloved mascot may determine whether the Phillie Phanatic will continue to be a staple of Philadelphia baseball games.

A class action lawsuit could tarnish the shine of one of the world’s biggest brands.

The defective product lawsuit lists many complaints against the latest version of the Apple iPhone, as well as AT&T, the company which provides phone and data service to the phone’s users.

Filed by Maryland residents, the lawsuit alleges that Apple and AT&T are guilty of breach of warranty, deceptive trade practices, negligence, fraud, and misrepresentation.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, each complaint addresses the allegedly faulty design of the new iPhone 4’s antenna.

The lawsuit claims that the placement of the antenna within the iPhone’s metal frame renders cell phone reception poor for people who hold the phone by the left hand corner. Somehow, the complaint says, such use prevents the antenna from working properly.

The plaintiffs claim that both Apple and AT&T knew of the shoddy design before launching the sale of the new product.

Reports indicate that the personal injury plaintiffs have experienced multiple dropped calls as a result of the product’s design, and as a result the plaintiffs cannot use the phones for their marketed purpose: making calls.

According to the defective product lawsuit, the number of affected customers could reach into the millions. Thus, the suit was filed as a class action claim.

In an email to the technology website engadget, an Apple executive recommended the following remedy to its customers:

“If you ever experience this on your iPhone 4, avoid gripping it in the lower left corner in a way that covers both sides of the black strip in the metal band, or simply use one of many available cases.”

This response has only given fodder for further backlash against the company, as many customers complain that such advice simply blames the consumer for reception troubles, and frees Apple from any blame related to reception issues.

However, others claim that antenna attenuation is a common problem for cell phones, and that this is a frivolous lawsuit.

Further, according to the New York Times, the latest edition of the iPhone actually gets better reception than previous iterations of the popular device. In repeated consumer tests, reviewers reported an increase in the range of the cell phone’s reception capabilities.

In fact, the same Times article suggests that a bigger controversy surrounds the computer algorithm created by Apple that determines the number of digital reception bars that are placed in the corner of the screen.

Apple itself has admitted that this algorithm is wrong and has sometimes misrepresented the actual strength of the users’ reception.

While this suit may indeed be frivolous, it will soon have more company in court. In addition to the Maryland residents’ claim, at least three other lawsuits have been filed in response to the allegedly malfunctioning antennas.

Providing further hope for victims of sexual abuse, a lawsuit against the Vatican has leapt over another hurdle.

According to the Associated Press, the Supreme Court recently refused to stop a sexual abuse lawsuit filed by an Oregon man against the Vatican.

In the lawsuit, the accuser alleges that he was sexually abused as a teenager in Portland, Ore., by Rev. Andrew Ronan. According to sources, the Catholic Church had already transferred Rev. Ronan twice before, from Ireland to Chicago and then to Portland, in the wake of sexual abuse accusations.

The lawsuit says the Vatican acted irresponsibly by transferring the offending priest from city to city despite repeated allegations of sexual abuse.

In an effort to dismiss the case, the Vatican, operating under its legal name as the Holy See, appealed an appellate court decision allowing the case to proceed. However, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, allowing the trial to move forward.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, the Vatican’s primary defense rests on the longstanding doctrine that sovereign foreign nations cannot be sued in American courts. Historically, the Vatican has been considered a sovereign foreign nation.

However, there is an exception to this rule. Under the Foreign Services Immunities Act, a foreign nation can be sued in a U.S. court if the illegal act was performed by an employee or official of the foreign country “while acting within the scope of his office or employment.”

Arguing against this exception, the Vatican claimed it could not be held responsible for the alleged acts of Rev. Ronan because his acts were completely unrelated to his employment as a priest.

Since sexual abuse is not part of a priest’s work for the Catholic Church, the Vatican should not be responsible for paying damages related to such acts.

In response, the accuser’s attorneys argued that the priest used his position as a member of the clergy to gain the trust of young boys. As a result of the access to children granted to him by the church, the priest was able to perform the alleged abusive acts.

After reviewing these competing claims, both the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, saying that the priest was serving as an employee of the Catholic Church at the time of the alleged sexual abuse.

As a result, the trial will move forward, and its outcome will likely have a significant impact on future lawsuits against the Catholic Church.

If you or a loved one has been a victim of sexual abuse, a personal injury attorney can help you navigate through the sensitive and complex issues such a case presents.

During confrontations with physically threatening combatants, police often enlist the aid of non-lethal weapons, including the popular Taser stun-gun.

As the use of Tasers becomes more widespread and accepted, police have begun using them in more situations. However common they may be, their use may still be considered excessive use of force, particularly when a grandmother is at the other end of the electrical jolt.

Recently, officers in two separate incidents used Tasers to subdue elderly grandmothers.

In the first and most shocking incident, policemen recently Tasered an 86-year-old disabled grandmother in Oklahoma. According to NewsOK.com, Lona Varner filed a personal injury lawsuit against the city of El Reno and the officers who were involved in the Taser incident.

While the officers’ actions seem like a clear example of police brutality, reports suggest that the policemen had a viable reason to subdue to the woman. Sources indicate that officers responded to a 911 call by Varner’s grandson saying the woman was suicidal.

When the police arrived in her bedroom, Varner allegedly raised a knife over her head and threatened to kill the officers if they came any closer. Fearing that she posed an imminent threat, one officer fired his Taser and missed, requiring the use of a second officer’s Taser.

This second Taser attempt had its intended effect, and Varner suffered burns to her chest from the shock, as well as torn flesh on her arms where the officers handcuffed her. According to her attorney, Varner accrued $30,000 in medical bills as a result of the policemen’s conduct.

Unfortunately, this is not the first controversial incident for police in El Reno, Oklahoma. Two years ago, officers used a Taser an uncooperative driver who subsequently went into diabetic shock.

In another recent incident, Texas police used a Taser on a 72-year-old grandmother after pulling her over for speeding.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, a deputy in Travis County fired his Taser at Kathryn Winkfein after she began arguing with him on the side of a busy highway. A video of the incident is now circulating online, making the woman an unlikely celebrity.

Reports indicate that the officer Tasered Winkfein after she refused to sign the traffic ticket and began using profane language. The officer also said she became combative, though the victim disputes this claim.

Regardless of her behavior, the video shows Winkfein is almost half the size of the officer. Due to the extreme disparity in physical strength, the Travis County District Attorney is investigating whether the officer’s use of a Taser was appropriate.

The manufacturer of the controversial weapon, Taser International, claims that the weapon is safe for use on anyone weighing more than 60 pounds. However, the company has not issued age restrictions for the use of its product.

If you or anyone you know has been the victim of an unnecessary Taser attack, or other forms of police brutality, it could be fruitful to learn more about personal injury lawsuits.