Maryland Lawsuits AgainstMargaret Cyzeski, M.D.
Baltimore, MD 21204
This website does not represent the outcome of these lawsuits against Margaret Cyzeski, 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.
Margaret Cyzeski, M.D. is a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist who is affiliated with Greater Baltimore Medical Center (GBMC). Dr. Cyzeski specializes in the management of menopausal symptoms and has extensive experience in reproductive removal surgery, including hysterectomies. Although this page is focused solely on Dr. Cyzeski, you can find information about medical malpractice lawsuits filed against GBMC here.
Based on the currently available medical data, Dr. Cyzeski has been named as a defendant or co-defendant in two 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. Cyzeski lists the following allegations:
- Failing to administer a necessary cesarean section. The complaint asserts that the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital in labor after reaching full term pregnancy. Her prenatal care records purportedly indicated a healthy and viable fetus during the entire course of gestation. However, after medical staff artificially ruptured her amniotic sac, the plaintiff allegedly experienced a prolonged labor that lasted nearly 24 hours, despite multiple doses of a contraction inducing drug called Pitocin. As cited in the complaint, fetal heart monitoring also began to reveal signs of distress as the plaintiff continued to labor unsuccessfully. Despite these complications, the defendant doctor ostensibly failed to perform a cesarean section as required to prevent unnecessarily long periods of fetal oxygen deprivation.
- Failing to prevent patient harm. Per the complaint, the plaintiff and her child endured additional distress during the final moments of vaginal delivery. Upon encountering difficulty in removing the infant from the vaginal canal, the defendant doctor allegedly attempted to use vacuum extraction but was unsuccessful. There was also a purported incident of shoulder dystocia, which occurs when the infant’s shoulder is lodged above the mother’s pubic bone. After delivery, the infant required supplemental oxygen for three minutes and was subsequently diagnosed with a severe and permanent brain injury. The complaint contends that this injury is directly attributable to the failure of the defendant doctor in administering a cesarean section, and that the plaintiff’s child would likely have been born healthy had the cesarean been performed at the first sign of labor complications.
The second available complaint against Dr. Cyzeski lists the following allegations:
- Failing to properly manage a high-risk pregnancy. The complaint contends that the plaintiff was 42 years old when she presented to the defendant doctor for prenatal care. Her advanced maternal age combined with a history of preterm delivery reportedly classified her pregnancy as high risk. As cited in the complaint, appropriate standards of care for the plaintiff included hormone therapy beginning at 16 weeks gestation to promote a healthy pregnancy and prevent early labor. However, the defendant doctor allegedly failed to implement hormone therapy and the plaintiff subsequently began experiencing signs of labor at 23 weeks gestation.
- Failing to prevent patient harm. Per the complaint, the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital when she began experiencing early labor. At that time, she was placed under the care of a co-defendant doctor who allegedly failed to station her in a head down, feet elevated position known to minimize pressure on the cervix and halt premature labor. Instead, the co-defendant doctor purportedly ruptured the plaintiff’s amniotic membrane and proceeded with a vaginal delivery despite fetal immaturity. The plaintiff’s son subsequently required eight months of intensive neonatal care and was eventually diagnosed with severe and permanent brain injuries due to his premature birth. As maintained in the complaint, these birth defects are directly attributable to the negligence of the defendants. The complaint further asserts that if the plaintiff had received appropriate standards of care during her high-risk pregnancy and ensuing premature labor, her baby likely would have been born full term and healthy.
Last updated May 14, 2021