Maryland Lawsuits AgainstJena L Miller, M.D.

Baltimore, MD 21287

This website does not represent the outcome of these lawsuits against Jena L. Miller, 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.

Jena Lyn Miller, M.D. is an obstetrician-gynecologist associated with Johns Hopkins Hospital. She is a board-certified specialist in both standard OB-GYN care and maternal-fetal medicine, which involves the management of high risk pregnancies and acute fetal conditions. Dr. Miller is an assistant professor in the gynecology-obstetrics and surgery departments at Johns Hopkins and is a physician team member of the hospital’s Center for Fetal Therapy. Prior to joining the medical staff at Johns Hopkins, Dr. Miller served as an assistant professor of Eastern Virginia Medical School’s maternal-fetal medicine division and directed its Sentara EVMS Fetal Care Center. Dr. Miller’s specialties include simulations of in utero abnormalities to advance the research of intervention strategies, and she pioneered the use of 3D printing to model fetal spina bifida.  Although this page is solely focused on Dr. Miller, you can find other information relating to lawsuits for medical malpractice against Johns Hopkins Hospital here.

Based on the currently available data, Dr. Miller has been cited as a co-defendant in a Maryland medical malpractice claim one time. The lawsuit that list her as a co-defendant is associated with 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 listed the following allegations:

  • Failing to intervene during a difficult labor. The plaintiff alleged that she arrived at the defendant hospital in active labor and was admitted with a strict monitoring protocol due to sonographic indications of an abnormally large fetal abdominal circumference. As her labor continued to progress she developed a high fever and was treated for a suspected infection of her amniotic fluid. Despite these complications, the suit contends that the defendant doctors did not discuss the option of a cesarean section for over 16 hours after the plaintiff was admitted.
  • Failing to perform a timely cesarean section. According to the complaint, the plaintiff endured a prolonged labor before her cervical dilation halted at 9cm, an amount insufficient for a vaginal delivery. Fetal monitoring also revealed that the unborn child’s heartrate was becoming erratic. However, defendant doctors did not administer a cesarean section until the plaintiff had been in active labor for nearly 24 hours. By the time the baby was delivered via cesarean section he had suffered massive brain injuries due to prolonged oxygen deprivation while in the birth canal, and was taken off life support a few days later due to his poor prognosis.
  • Failing to provide informed consent. The plaintiff alleged that after she was admitted to the defendant hospital she continued to undergo labor for many hours in anticipation of a vaginal delivery, even while her condition and that of her unborn child steadily deteriorated. It was not until she had been in active labor for almost an entire day, she claimed, that the defendant doctors discussed the benefits of a cesarean section with her. Had they recommended a cesarean procedure at an earlier point in time, she would have elected to immediately proceed with that plan of care, a decision that is alleged to have likely prevented her infant’s devastating birth defects.

Last updated May 14, 2021

Jena L Miller, M.D. Lawsuit Statistics