Maryland Lawsuits AgainstLillian Hunter, M.D.

Baltimore, MD 21204

This website does not represent the outcome of these lawsuits against Lillian Hunter, 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.

Lillian Hunter, M.D. is a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist who is affiliated with Greater Baltimore Medical Center (GBMC). Dr. Hunter specializes in the management of pelvic growths such as cysts and fibroids and has extensive experience in reproductive removal surgery, including hysterectomies. Although this page is focused solely on Dr. Hunter, you can find information about medical malpractice lawsuits filed against GBMC here.

Based on the currently available medical data, Dr. Hunter has been named as a defendant or co-defendant in three Maryland medical malpractice cases. The entire complaint for each available case, as filed with the court, is found below:

The first available complaint against Dr. Hunter lists the following allegations:

  • Failing to recommend appropriate diagnostic procedures. As asserted in the complaint, the plaintiff was referred by her family physician for an abdominal ultrasound and pelvic sonogram due to lingering abdominal pain. The imaging purportedly showed a small liver mass, which the radiologist advised be further investigated for cancerous growth via a CT scan.  Despite this recommendation, the defendant family doctor allegedly led the plaintiff to believe her ultrasounds were normal and did not instruct her to undergo any follow up tests, imaging, or evaluations.
  • Failing to properly monitor a patient’s medical condition. Per the complaint, the plaintiff’s abdominal imaging reports were forwarded to the defendant gynecologist, who had allegedly expressed concern to the plaintiff during a prior visit about her heightened risk of gynecologic cancer. However, the defendant gynecologist purportedly failed to counsel the plaintiff on her irregular imaging reports or relay the radiologist’s recommendation for a CT scan to determine if cancer was present. As cited in the complaint, the plaintiff also returned to her family physician for blood studies that revealed abnormal liver function. The complaint asserts that she once again received no instruction to undergo follow up testing or imaging.
  • Failing to prevent patient harm. The complaint maintains that roughly 18 months after the blood study revealed her liver function irregularity, the plaintiff returned to her family physician with gastric problems. Imaging of her abdomen allegedly revealed that the mass on her liver had grown to over 13 centimeters. Further testing confirmed the presence of an inoperable malignant liver tumor. As asserted in the complaint, the plaintiff’s virulent cancer and poor prognosis for recovery was the direct result of the defendant doctors’ negligence in providing appropriate standards of care. The complaint further alleges that if the plaintiff had been properly and timely advised of her abnormal abdominal imaging results and received adequate instructions to undergo follow up procedures, her cancer likely would have been diagnosed before it reached an advanced stage, allowing for a greater chance of recovery.

The second available complaint against Dr. Hunter lists the following allegations:

  • Failing to appropriately medicate a high-risk patient. According to the complaint, a patient in the early stages of pregnancy was instructed by the co-defendant doctor to monitor her blood pressure due to a history of preeclampsia, an elevated blood pressure disorder that affects pregnant women. The patient’s pregnancy progressed until she reached approximately 35 weeks gestation and presented to the defendant hospital with reports of abdominal pain, vomiting, and chest discomfort. Upon admittance, her blood pressure was found to be abnormally high and she was diagnosed with severe preeclampsia and morbid obesity. Despite these concerning complications, the co-defendant doctor allegedly neglected to administer medication that can prevent life threatening side effects of the patient’s condition, including blood clots.
  • Failing to properly monitor a high-risk patient. The complaint asserts that shortly after the patient delivered her infant via cesarean section, her care was transferred to defendant Hunter and a third defendant doctor, both of whom also allegedly failed to provide medication to counteract the potentially fatal complications of preeclampsia and obesity. Roughly 48 hours after the birth of her child, the patient’s condition appeared to have improved and she was allowed out of bed for the first time since delivery. After using the restroom, she purportedly experienced breathing difficulties and lost consciousness. Despite extensive resuscitation efforts by medical staff, the patient died having never regained a pulse.
  • Failing to prevent patient death. As cited in the complaint, which was filed on the patient’s behalf by her estate representative, an autopsy revealed the cause of death as a blood clot in the lung known as pulmonary artery emboli. The complaint contends that the emboli and the patient’s resulting demise were directly caused by the defendant doctors. Specifically, it alleges that the patient had several known risk factors for emboli, including preeclampsia, obesity, and extended immobility following her cesarean surgery, and that an appropriate standard of care should have included medication to prevent the formation of blood clots. Per the complaint, had the patient received that medication, she likely would have made a full recovery from her cesarean section and been discharged home with her infant.

The third available complaint against Dr. Hunter lists the following allegations: 

  • Failing to properly monitor a high-risk pregnancy. According to the complaint, the plaintiff received prenatal care from the defendant doctor. Her pregnancy was uneventful until she reached 39 weeks and five days gestation and developed pregnancy induced hypertension, a high blood pressure condition that can affect fetal health and cause maternal seizures if untreated. She was then observed for complications at the defendant hospital and released the same day despite complaints of headache, abdominal pain, and lower body swelling, all of which are cited in the complaint as signs of worsening maternal hypertension. A subsequent follow up appointment at the defendant doctor’s office revealed lingering high blood pressure; however, fetal heart rate and movement were allegedly not recorded and the plaintiff was sent home with orders to stay on bed rest.
  • Failing to prevent patient harm. Per the complaint, the plaintiff was again evaluated by the defendant doctor at 40 weeks and two days gestation and remained hypertensive. A biophysical profile to determine fetal well-being allegedly resulted in a score of 6/8, and amniotic fluid was recorded as abnormally low. The plaintiff was then immediately sent to the defendant hospital for induction of labor. She purportedly suffered a maternal seizure the next day, and her infant daughter was subsequently born pale, limp, and not breathing. The infant was resuscitated but died a week later despite receiving intensive neonatal care. As alleged in the complaint, her death was attributable to the negligence of the defendants in properly diagnosing and treating the plaintiff’s late stage maternal hypertension. The complaint further maintains that if the plaintiff had received appropriate standards of care, a timelier delivery of her baby would have been implemented and likely resulted in her survival.

Last updated May 14, 2021

Lillian Hunter, M.D. Lawsuit Statistics

Complaints


Complaint #1 - Hunter-complaint.pdf

Complaint #2 - Hunter-second-complaint.pdf

Complaint #3 - Hunter-third-complaint.pdf