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.”