Maryland Lawsuits AgainstAhmet A Baschat, M.D.
Baltimore, MD 21287
This website does not represent the outcome of these lawsuits against Ahmet A. Baschat, 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.
Ahmet A. Baschat, M.D. is an obstetrician-gynecologist affiliated with Johns Hopkins Hospital. He is a board-certified physician in both standard OB-GYN care and maternal-fetal medicine, which focuses on the management of high risk pregnancies and acute fetal conditions. Dr. Bashat is a professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins and serves as director of the hospital’s Center for Fetal Therapy. Prior to joining the medical staff at Johns Hopkins in 2014, Dr. Baschat taught at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and directed its maternal-fetal medicine and fetal therapy programs. Although this page is solely focused on Dr. Baschat, you can find other information relating to lawsuits for medical malpractice against Johns Hopkins Hospital here, and the University of Maryland Medical System here.
Based on publicly available records and data, Dr. Baschat has been cited as a co-defendant in a Maryland medical malpractice lawsuit two times. While the Maryland circuit court complaints are available in a PDF below, here is an excerpt of the allegations:
The first available complaint lists the following allegations:
- Failing to properly monitor a distressed fetus. The minor plaintiff’s mother experienced complications throughout her pregnancy and was admitted to the defendant hospital after her water prematurely broke at 30 weeks and 6 days of gestation. Despite these obvious risk factors to the fetus, the minor plaintiff’s parents alleged that electronic fetal monitoring was only administered sporadically for the nearly five days the minor plaintiff’s mother remained in the hospital prior to delivery.
- Failing to perform a timely cesarean section. After the minor plaintiff’s mother continuously leaked amniotic fluid for five days during her stay at the defendant hospital, she began experiencing painful contractions. Fetal monitoring revealed the baby had an elevated heart rate and was in a breech position, and she was subsequently delivered via cesarean section. Following her birth, she was diagnosed with several severe and permanent conditions, including cerebral palsy. Her parents alleged that the delay in administering a cesarean section contributed to her birth injuries.
- Failing to provide informed consent. The minor plaintiff’s parents alleged that they were never advised by the defendant hospital staff of the benefits of continuous fetal monitoring. They also asserted that if continuous fetal monitoring had been administered, the baby’s distress in utero could have potentially been identified early enough to allow for medical interventions or a timely cesarean section. Such measures, they claimed, could have prevented her medical issues and allowed for a healthy birth.
The second available complaint lists the following allegations:
- Failing to properly monitor a high-risk patient. Per the complaint, the plaintiff presented to the defendant hospital for prenatal care at 33 weeks and 4 days gestation. During her initial prenatal care appointment, she allegedly indicated a history of smoking and gestational diabetes, which as outlined in the complaint have been shown to cause birth complications. A subsequent ultrasound apparently revealed abnormal umbilical blood flow. Despite this anomaly and the plaintiff’s history of smoking and gestational diabetes, the defendant doctor reportedly failed to initiate diligent monitoring to ensure the health of the plaintiff and her baby, including twice weekly biophysical profiles and a non stress test.
- Failing to manage a complex labor and delivery. As contended in the complaint, at roughly 36 weeks gestation the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital with reports of contractions. Continuous fetal monitoring was apparently initiated and remained classified as category II, which per the complaint is defined as “indeterminate” of fetal health and meriting extensive surveillance. The plaintiff then allegedly endured nearly ten hours of labor until it was determined she was only 4cm dilated, which as outlined in the complaint is far below the 10 cm required to commence a vaginal delivery. Despite the non-reassuring fetal heart tracing and the plaintiff’s protracted labor, the defendant doctor reportedly delayed the administration of an emergency cesarean section delivery.
- Failing to prevent patient harm. According to the complaint, the plaintiff’s child suffered from a brain stroke and respiratory distress syndrome upon birth. It was also apparently determined that she had aspirated fecal matter during labor. She was subsequently diagnosed with brain damage and global developmental delay. The complaint maintains that these permanent birth defects are the direct result of negligence on the part of the defendant doctor. Had he adhered to proper standards of medical care by ensuring appropriate prenatal monitoring and initiating a timely and necessary cesarean delivery, the plaintiff’s child would likely have been born healthy, as averred in the complaint.
Last updated August 20, 2021