Maryland Lawsuits AgainstJanice Henderson, M.D.
Baltimore, MD 212187
This website does not represent the outcome of these lawsuits against Janice Henderson, 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.
Janice Henderson, M.D. is a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist and maternal fetal medicine specialist practicing at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Dr. Henderson specializes in high risk pregnancies and has conducted extensive research on maternal obesity management. She serves as director of the hospital’s fetal assessment center and created the Johns Hopkins nutrition in pregnancy clinic, which provides dietary and lifestyle counseling to pregnant women at risk of obesity related complications. Dr. Henderson is currently an assistant professor gynecology and obstetrics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Although this page is focused solely on Dr. Henderson, you can find information about medical malpractice lawsuits filed against Johns Hopkins Hospital here.
Based on the currently available data, Dr. Henderson has been named as a defendant or co-defendant in one Maryland medical malpractice case. The entire complaint for that case, as filed with the court, is listed below:
The complaint against Dr. Henderson lists 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 purportedly 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 alleges that she was sent home the same day without instructions to monitor her fetus for decreased movement. As cited in the complaint, lack of fetal activity is a widely recognized warning sign that preeclampsia is adversely affecting the health of the fetus. The plaintiff further contends 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 asserts in the complaint 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 was allegedly 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 contends 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 allegedly began to experience heavy vaginal bleeding. She purportedly 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 widely considered a medical emergency requiring urgent intervention.
- Failing to prevent patient injury and death. The complaint asserts that shortly after admitting the plaintiff to a delivery suite, the 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 alleges she was discharged with a summary that noted a placental abruption. As cited in the complaint, abruptions of the placenta are an established consequence of poorly monitored preeclampsia. The complaint also asserts that the plaintiff’s stillborn child was significantly underweight due to fetal growth restriction, another side effect of improperly managed preeclampsia.
Last updated May 14, 2021