Maryland Lawsuits AgainstAmanda P Stewart, M.D.
Baltimore, MD 21287
Amanda Patrice Stewart, M.D. is an obstetrician-gynecologist who completed her medical fellowship at Johns Hopkins Hospital in conjunction with the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Available records indicate that she is not currently practicing within the Johns Hopkins medical system. She is a board-certified physician in both standard OB-GYN care and maternal-fetal medicine, which focuses on the treatment of conditions affecting pregnant women and their unborn babies. Although this page is solely focused on Dr. Stewart, you can find other information relating to lawsuits for medical malpractice against Johns Hopkins Hospital here.
Based on the currently available data, Dr. Stewart has been named as a co-defendant in a Maryland medical malpractice claim one time. The lawsuit relates to her tenure at Johns Hopkins Hospital. The entire complaint for each available case, as filed with the court, is found below.
The first available complaint against Dr. Stewart listed the following allegations:
- Failing to properly monitor a high risk pregnant patient. As alleged in the complaint, the plaintiff received prenatal care for almost seven months at the defendant hospital. Warning signs of preeclampsia, a potentially deadly high blood pressure disorder that can develop during pregnancy, were noted early in the pregnancy by the defendant doctors. Although the plaintiff’s blood pressure remained abnormally high during subsequent pre-natal appointments, she was not sent for diagnostic lab studies to further investigate the elevated readings until her seventh month of prenatal care at the defendant hospital.
- Failing to develop a plan of care for a high risk pregnant patient. After a blood pressure cycle evaluation at the defendant hospital’s labor and delivery department, the plaintiff alleged she was sent home the same day without instructions to monitor her fetus for decreased movement. Lack of fetal activity is a widely recognized warning sign that preeclampsia is adversely affecting the health of the fetus. The plaintiff also contended that her diagnostic lab work revealed exorbitant levels of protein in her urine, which is an indicator of severe preeclampsia. At no time after the defendant doctors received these abnormal lab results was the plaintiff administered an ultrasound to evaluate the status of her fetus, according to the complaint.
- Failing to provide necessary inpatient medical observation. The plaintiff asserted that during her final pre-natal appointment at over 35 weeks gestation, she was instructed to undergo non-stress testing based on a diagnosis of pregnancy induced hypertension (preeclampsia). During this visit her blood pressure remained elevated and was in fact higher than the reading on her previous visit. Despite her spiking blood pressure and the noted development of preeclampsia in a late term pregnancy, the plaintiff alleged she was sent home when she should have been immediately admitted to the defendant hospital’s labor and delivery department for monitoring.
- Failing to provide emergency medical treatment. One day after her final pre-natal appointment, the plaintiff contended that she arrived at the labor and delivery department of the defendant hospital with complaints of a headache, uterine contractions and decreased fetal activity. After being instructed to remain in the waiting area until a delivery suite was available, the plaintiff alleged that she began to experience heavy vaginal bleeding. The plaintiff was not admitted to a labor and delivery room for nearly 90 minutes after her arrival at the defendant hospital even though bleeding in a near term pregnant woman is considered a medical emergency requiring urgent intervention.
- Failing to prevent patient injury and death. Shortly after being admitted to a delivery suite the plaintiff asserted that nursing staff could not locate a fetal heartbeat. The plaintiff then suffered a seizure, which is a common complication of severe preeclampsia, and received a blood transfusion before delivering a stillborn baby girl later that day. At one point during her time in the labor and delivery unit the plaintiff’s retina also detached, requiring acute ophthalmological care. After enduring a four-day recovery period in the defendant hospital, the plaintiff alleged she was discharged with a summary that noted a placental abruption. The complaint alleged that abruptions of the placenta are an established consequence of poorly monitored preeclampsia. The plaintiff’s stillborn child was also significantly underweight, suggesting that she suffered from Fetal Growth Restriction, another side effect of improperly managed preeclampsia.
Last updated October 12, 2020