Maryland Lawsuits AgainstBetty Chou, M.D.
Baltimore, MD 212187
This website does not represent the outcome of these lawsuits against Betty Chou, 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.
Betty Chou, M.D. is a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist who is currently practicing with Johns Hopkins Hospital. She is an assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and serves as director of the hospital’s residency program for obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN). Dr. Chou specializes in several different areas of obstetrics and gynecology, including uterine fibroid treatment, menopause management, colposcopy procedures, and cervical dysplasia therapies. Although this page is focused solely on Dr. Chou, you can find information about medical malpractice lawsuits filed against Johns Hopkins Hospital here.
Based on publicly available records and data, Dr. Chou has been named as a co-defendant in one Maryland medical malpractice case. While the Maryland circuit court complaint is available in a PDF below, here is an excerpt of the allegations:
The available complaint filed against Dr. Chou lists the following allegations:
- Failing to contact a more senior resident when the defendant’s actions were contraindicated. According to the complaint, the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital at approximately 37 weeks gestation for induction of labor. After a labor enhancing drug known as pitocin was administered, monitor tracing purportedly began to show signs of fetal distress. Despite this worrisome development, medical staff allegedly failed to alert more senior attending physicians of the situation while continuing to increase the dosage of pitocin, which the complaint contends was contraindicated in the event of fetal distress.
- Failing to properly address and manage fetal distress. Per the complaint, the plaintiff proceeded to undergo labor for several hours as fetal monitoring indicated erratic heart tracings and abnormal contraction patterns. The complaint contends that these clear signs of fetal distress necessitated an aggressive standard of care, including an emergency ceserean section, to ensure a safe birth. However, the defendant doctors allegedly chose to continue monitoring the plaintiff in anticipation of a vaginal delivery. Due to this purported error in judgement, the fetus purportedly received only minor medical interventions as its condition steadily deteriorated.
- Failing to timely perform a cesarean section. As cited in the complaint, the plaintiff endured almost nine hours of distressed labor until she delivered her baby vaginally. Upon birth, the baby had labored breathing, poor tone, and a low heart rate. He was immediately intubated and spent nearly a month in the defendant hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit. Eventually he was diagnosed with several severe and permanent birth injuries, including seizures and perinatal asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain). The complaint contends that if the defendant doctors had followed the appropriate standard of care in administering an emergency cesarean section, the baby likely would have been born healthy.
- Failing to provide informed consent. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff endured a prolonged and unnecessary vaginal labor that directly contributed to her baby’s permanent birth defects. As further contended in the complaint, had the defendant doctors adequately informed the plaintiff of the benefits of a timely cesarean section for her distressed fetus, she would have elected to proceed with that standard of care and her baby likely would have been born healthy.
Last updated August 16, 2021