Maryland Lawsuits AgainstCyrus Lawyer, III, M.D.

Balitmore, MD 21202

This website does not represent the outcome of these lawsuits against Cyrus Lawyer, III, M.D., nor does it judge the veracity of the accusations therein.  In Maryland, however, all medical malpractice lawsuits require a certificate from an actively practicing doctor vouching for the merit of the lawsuit.

Cyrus Lawyer, III, M.D. is affiliated with both Metropolitan OB-GYN and Mercy Hospital in Baltimore Maryland.  Dr. Lawyer is a Board-Certified physician who provides a full spectrum of obstetric and gynecologic care to women in Baltimore and surrounding areas.  Dr. Lawyer, although now at Mercy Hospital, has also worked for University of Maryland Medical Center in the past.  Dr. Lawyer has been listed as a defendant or a co-defendant several lawsuits, while working at both facilities.  Although this page is solely focused on Dr. Lawyer, you can find other information relating to lawsuits for medical malpractice against Mercy Hospital here, and University of Maryland here.

Based on publicly available records and data, Dr. Lawyer has been named as a co-defendant in four Maryland medical malpractice cases. While the Maryland circuit court complaints are available in a PDF below, here is an excerpt of the allegations:

The first available complaint listed the following allegations:

  • Failing to direct the plaintiff to undergo proper pre-operative testing, preparation, and cleansing prior to a hysterectomy. The plaintiff had a preexisting surgical history to the bowel and gastrointestinal region, which was alleged to place her at a higher risk.
  • Failing to order a colostomy. The plaintiff alleged that instead of performing a diverting colostomy at the sign of complications, the doctors instead stitched the hole in the rectum. The plaintiff alleged that the colostomy would have ensured safe healing and probably prevention of fecal matter leaking out.
  • Failing to recognize that the plaintiff would suffer undue and unnecessary injury and harm if a colostomy was not performed. As a result of the failure to perform a colostomy, the plaintiff alleged that, as a result of the hole in her colon and drainage into the vagina, she suffered damages including pain, infection, discomfort, sexual dysfunction, and future loss of earning capacity.

The second available complaint against Dr. Lawyer, III, listed the following allegations:

  • Failing to adequately monitor or correctly evaluate the plaintiff’s medical condition, when inducing labor when her fetus was in breech position. The plaintiff presented with a contraindication to induction of labor, the fetus in breech position.  Despite this, a second Cervidil was inserted.  The plaintiff’s blood pressure and protein in urine continued to be high, which were signs of preeclampsia.
  • Failing to make a timely decision to deliver cesarean section. The plaintiff alleged, that despise showing signs of preeclampsia, including protein in her urine, and the fetus in breech position, she was induced. The labor lasted for approximately 26 hours before the plans to perform a C-section were discussed.
  • Failing to adequately monitor the plaintiff post-delivery. Despite having pre-existing issues that the doctors were aware of, plaintiff alleges that she was not properly monitored when she had a postpartum hemorrhage and episodic vaginal bleeding. The plaintiff alleged a substantial delay in care, resulting in fluid around the kidneys, and she ultimately became tachypnic and tachycardic.  Unfortunately, the plaintiff, as the day progressed, became hypoxic with her abdomen distended, received no treatment, and was pronounced dead.

The third lawsuit alleges:

  • Failing to react to positive history, signs, and symptoms which were illustrative of the plaintiff’s condition. Plaintiff presented to the hospital at 39 and 6/7 weeks gestation, with contractions 4 to 5 minutes apart. The fetal heart rate was sowing positive variability with a fetal heart rate in the 140’s.  The plaintiff was still 90 percent effaced, with the baby in the -2 stations.
  • Failure to timely and appropriately diagnose fetal distress. Several hours later, during a vagina exam, the plaintiff was 5 cm dilated, 100 percent effaced, and the membranes were artificially ruptured. Despise inadequate process throughout the first stage of labor, there was no timely cesarean section.
  • Failure to timely and appropriately perform a cesarean section on the plaintiff. Despite failing to progress via labor, there was no cesarean section performed in a timely manner. Pitocin was administered twice that day. The plaintiff also alleged, that despite the fetal heart rate tracing become erratic, with deep decelerations, the defendants still induced labor. Unfortunately, hours later, a cesarean section was performed, and the umbilical cord was wrapped around the baby’s neck, causing lifelong issues.

The fourth lawsuit alleges the following:

  • Failing to order a non-stress test upon first visit. Plaintiff was prescribed non-stress tests 5 days apart in a visit on September 5th. Despite fetal movement being recorded, and at 32 weeks gestation, no non-stress test was ordered that day. The fetal heart rate was measured to be 140, and the mother was assessed a 1+ edema.
  • Failing to deliver the baby in a timely manner. September 6th, the stress test revealed two variable decelerations to 90, showing signs of fetal distress.  The Mother signed a consent for cesarean section at 12:55 PM that day.
  • Failing to have the plaintiff taken to the labor and delivery room in a timely fashion. From 12:55 PM, until 1:40, nearly one hour later, no doctor was available to perform the operation.  At 2:31, the plaintiff was delivered via C-section, at 3 pounds and 2 ounces, the baby was blue and limp, with a tight nuchal cord.  Unfortunately, the baby suffered a hemorrhage on the right side, and was thrombocytopenic.  Plaintiff was diagnosed with cerebral palsy, cognitive delay, and other behavior issues, which were alleged to be from the delay in proper delivery.

Last updated August 16, 2021

Cyrus Lawyer, III, M.D. Lawsuit Statistics


Complaint #1 - Cyrus-Laywer-III-Medical-Malpractice-Lawsuit-1.pdf

Complaint #2 - Cyrus-Lawyer-III-Birth-Injury-Lawsuit-2.pdf

Complaint #3 - Cyrus-Lawyer-III-Birth-Injury-Lawsuit-3.pdf

Complaint #4 - Cyrus-Lawyer-III-Birth-Injury-Lawsuit-4.pdf