Maryland Lawsuits AgainstDavid Silverman
Baltimore, MD 21215
David Silverman, M.D. is a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist affiliated with Sinai Hospital. His specialties include management of menopausal symptoms, infertility treatment, and family planning. Although this page is focused solely on Dr. Silverman, you can find other information relating to medical malpractice lawsuits filed against Sinai Hospital here.
Based on the currently available data, Dr. Silverman has been named as a co-defendant in three Maryland medical malpractice cases. The cases are associated with his tenure at Sinai Hospital. The entire complaint for each case, as filed with the court, is found below.
The first available complaint against Dr. Silverman lists the following allegations:
- Failing to prescribe appropriate medication. According to the complaint, the plaintiff requested a birth control prescription from the defendant doctor during an annual gynecologic exam. Despite the plaintiff’s documented obesity and high blood pressure, commonly referred to as hypertension, the defendant doctor allegedly prescribed an oral contraceptive containing the hormones estrogen and progestin. As cited in the complaint, it is widely recommended that women who are obese and hypertensive use progestin only contraceptives to minimize their risk of complications.
- Failing to appropriately monitor a high-risk patient. Per the complaint, the plaintiff returned to the defendant doctor’s office roughly three months after receiving the oral contraceptive with reports of abdominal pain. A blood pressure assessment revealed her hypertension had increased substantially since her previous visit. The defendant doctor allegedly neglected to perform a complete exam for further evaluation of these troubling symptoms and instead determined that the plaintiff was suffering from benign uterine growths called fibroids.
- Failing to prevent patient injury. The complaint contends that approximately four months after the defendant doctor diagnosed her with fibroids, the plaintiff arrived at the Greater Baltimore Medical Center (GBMC) emergency room with chest pain, severe hypertension, and elevated heart rate. A CT scan revealed a blood clot in her lungs known as an embolism. The plaintiff immediately discontinued use of her oral contraceptive and spent six days in the hospital’s coronary care unit. During her inpatient stay it was determined that her acute hypertension had contributed to the embolism. Her blood pressure allegedly stabilized after she discontinued the oral contraceptive. As cited in the complaint, this was confirmation that the medication had triggered a hypertensive episode.
- Failing to provide informed consent. The complaint maintains that the defendant doctor breached the appropriate standard of care by prescribing an oral contraceptive with known risk factors for obese and hypertensive patients, and for neglecting to disclose those risk factors to the plaintiff. Had the plaintiff been aware of the dangers associated with the medication prescribed by the defendant, she would have chosen a safer birth control alternative and her life-threatening embolism event would have been avoided, per the complaint.
The second available complaint against Dr. Silverman lists the following allegations:
- Failing to use suitable surgical methods on a high-risk patient. The complaint contends that the plaintiff was referred for consultation with the defendant doctor after a biopsy of her uterus revealed excessive cell growth. To prevent the cell growth from becoming cancerous, the defendant doctor allegedly recommended removal of her uterus via a laparoscopic hysterectomy. The procedure was performed by the defendant doctor with a power morcellator, which is a surgical tool designed to grind and mince tissue prior to removal through small incisions. Approximately two years after the procedure, the plaintiff allegedly developed a large pelvic mass after abnormal uterine tissue was scattered throughout her body due to the defendant doctor’s inappropriate use of the morcellator tool.
- Failing to prevent patient injury. As cited in the complaint, the plaintiff endured nearly two years of severe abdominal pain before she was diagnosed with a large benign mass that had partially adhered to her colon. The growth was lodged so deeply in her pelvic region that it purportedly required two separate surgeries to remove. After pathology tests were performed on the mass, it was allegedly determined that abnormal uterine tissue had likely lodged in her pelvis during the power morcellation hysterectomy and then spread rapidly. The complaint contends that the plaintiff must now receive regular monitoring for the foreseeable future to identify any new pelvic region growths.
- Failing to provide informed consent. Per the complaint, the defendant breached the accepted standards of medical care by neglecting to inform the plaintiff of the risks associated with using a power morcellator on abnormal tissue during a hysterectomy. The plaintiff further contends in the complaint that if the defendant doctor had outlined the possibility of the power morcellator spreading abnormal uterine tissue through her pelvic region, she would have elected an alternate form of treatment for her excessive uterine cell growth and thus avoided the emergence of a painful pelvic mass.
Last updated October 26, 2020