Maryland Lawsuits AgainstVictor A Khouzami, M.D.
Baltimore, MD 21204
Victor A. Khouzami, M.D. is an obstetrician-gynecologist affiliated with Greater Baltimore Medical Center (GBMC). He is a board-certified physician in both standard OB-GYN care and maternal-fetal medicine, which focuses on the treatment of conditions affecting pregnant women and their unborn babies. Dr. Khouzami serves as chairman of GBMC’s obstetrics department and director of its women’s and infant health services division. Although this page is focused solely on Dr. Khouzami, you can find other information relating to lawsuits for medical malpractice against GBMC here.
Based on the currently available data, Dr. Khouzami has been named as a co-defendant in a Maryland medical malpractice case four times. These complaints are associated with his tenure at GBMC. The entire complaint for each available case, as filed with the court, is found below.
The first available complaint against Dr. Khouzami listed the following allegations:
- Failing to properly complete a medical procedure. As averred in the complaint, the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital at roughly 24 weeks’ gestation for observation and steroid administration. After six days as an inpatient the umbilical cord prolapsed through her cervix and she was immediately transferred to an operating room for an emergency cesarean section performed by the defendant doctor. According to the plaintiff, the defendant doctor misjudged the length and depth of a uterine incision during the surgery and severely lacerated the infant.
- Failing to prevent patient injury or death. The complaint contended that immediately following the cesarean procedure, it was determined that the plaintiff’s baby had sustained a 5-cm deep wound in the chest and abdomen due to the defendant doctor’s incision error. As cited in the complaint, the wound was so deep that the infant’s internal organs were protruding from the laceration, and she suffered from severe bleeding and a rapidly decreasing heart rate. Resuscitation efforts on the infant continued for approximately four minutes until the defendants allegedly made the decision to cease all lifesaving efforts. Shortly after resuscitation measures ended, the infant died from what the complaint alleged was a preventable injury caused by the defendant doctor’s negligence.
The second available complaint against Dr. Khouzami listed the following allegations:
- Failing to properly monitor a distressed patient. According to the complaint, a patient presented to the defendant hospital at nearly 40 weeks’ gestation with a report of ruptured membranes. After laboring for nearly six hours with minimal progress, Pitocin was administered to induce contractions and facilitate the labor process. Several hours after receiving increasing amounts of Pitocin, the patient’s blood pressure allegedly spiked while the fetal heart rate steadily declined. Despite these complications, the complaint contended that the nursing staff neglected to closely observe the status of the patient and her baby or call a physician for intervention.
- Failing to provide a timely cesarean section. The complaint contended that the patient and her unborn child continued to experience severe distress for nearly an hour before the defendant physicians ordered an emergency cesarean section. In fact, the decision to remove the patient’s Pitocin dosage and proceed with a cesarean section was allegedly not made until she was shaking and vomiting and her baby’s heart rate had dropped to dangerously low levels. Upon completion of the cesarean procedure it was determined that the patient was bleeding heavily from a placental abruption, which the complaint claimed an appropriately timed cesarean procedure could have prevented.
- Failing to prevent patient injury or death. As stated in the complaint, the defendant doctors became acutely aware of the patient’s severe blood loss during the cesarean procedure. However, they allegedly neglected to immediately request blood for a transfusion or administer drugs to control the bleeding despite the urgency of the situation. The complaint also maintained that an emergency hysterectomy, which was not performed, is recognized as an appropriate standard of care for a severe placental abruption and should have been part of the defendant doctor’s response. By the time the patient’s blood loss was finally mitigated she had experienced irreversible brain damage due to shock. She was removed from life support a few days later, an outcome that per the complaint was directly caused by the negligence of the defendants.
The third available complaint against Dr. Khouzami listed the following allegations:
- Failing to develop a plan of care for a high-risk patient. According to the complaint, the plaintiff received prenatal care from the defendant doctors throughout her pregnancy. Blood glucose testing was regularly administered as her pregnancy progressed and it remained at normal levels until a spike was allegedly noted at one of her prenatal appointments. As cited in the complaint, an untreated glucose elevation during pregnancy can lead to maternal diabetes. The plaintiff contended that the defendant doctors did not provide medication or treatment recommendations to control her blood glucose levels at that appointment, nor did they offer intervention to manage her rising glucose during two subsequent prenatal appointments.
- Failing to prevent patient injury and death. As alleged in the complaint, the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital while in a late stage of pregnancy. Metabolic testing revealed severely elevated blood glucose levels and physicians were unable to locate a fetal heartbeat. Following a pre-operative determination of fetal demise in utero a cesarean section was performed and the plaintiff’s baby was dead upon delivery. According to the baby’s death certificate, maternal undiagnosed diabetes was a contributing factor. The plaintiff contended that she finally received a diagnosis of diabetes after her baby’s death and was given medication and blood glucose counseling for the first time. Proper diagnoses and treatment of the plaintiff’s diabetes during the early stages of prenatal care likely would have resulted in a healthy birth, as averred by the complaint.
The fourth available complaint against Dr. Khouzami listed the following allegations:
- Failing to properly monitor a high-risk patient. According to the complaint, the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital after experiencing a hit and run car accident while pregnant. Despite complaining of pain and discomfort following the accident and expressing concern about the status of her unborn child, the plaintiff alleged she was given only one vaginal exam after being admitted and then discharged the next day with instructions to follow up a week later. In the week before her follow up appointment the plaintiff contended that she informed the defendant hospital of increasing pain and contractions but was not provided with any additional medical intervention.
- Failing to implement timely appropriate treatment measures. The complaint alleged that when the plaintiff returned to the defendant hospital for her follow up appointment, she was examined and told premature labor was imminent due to debris in the amniotic sac and that her baby was not expected to survive. Despite repeated requests to one of the defendant doctors for placement of a cervical stitch, known as a cerclage, to strengthen the cervix and delay the onset of labor, the defendant doctor refused to perform the procedure. It was not until the next day that a different defendant doctor agreed to place the cerclage, as averred by the complaint.
- Failing to provide basic standards of care. The plaintiff contended that after discussing her treatment options with the defendant doctors she elected to remain admitted to the defendant hospital until the birth of her child. For roughly 7-10 days after her admittance the plaintiff claimed she was denied basic hygiene care by the medical staff, including regular bathing and changing of bed linens.
- Failing to properly administer medications. As stated in the complaint, the plaintiff was eventually transferred to the defendant hospital’s labor and delivery department due to increasing signs of fetal distress. There she was allegedly given unknown medications that routinely made her feel sick and disoriented. She further claimed that she overheard one of the defendant doctors ask the medical staff if her medication dosage was too high.
- Failing to properly manage a high-risk labor and delivery. Per the complaint, the plaintiff’s unborn child continued to exhibit signs of distress for nearly two months as she remained in the defendant hospital waiting to give birth. When testing revealed that labor was imminent, the plaintiff was allegedly told to remain in bed with her feet elevated instead of being prepared by hospital staff for a delivery. The plaintiff further claimed that when her amniotic membranes ruptured, she was given medications to delay labor despite her baby having reached a stage of viability outside the womb. It was not until four days later that her infant was born via vaginal delivery.
- Failing to prevent patient injury and death. Immediately after giving birth, the plaintiff claimed the defendant doctors reviewed her medication list and determined her dosage had been too high. Her infant son was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit and the plaintiff visited with him shortly after allegedly was never advised on the status of his condition, nor was she permitted to visit him the next morning. The plaintiff maintained she was not informed of her son’s medical status until a hospital employee was sent to escort her to the neonatal intensive care unit with the explanation that her son had experienced severe complications and his death was imminent. Shortly after this exchange the infant died from what an autopsy concluded were prematurity and severe respiratory distress syndrome, both of which were directly caused by the defendant doctors negligence, per the complaint.
- Failing to provide informed consent. The complaint averred that from the time the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital, she was never adequately informed of her baby’s medical status or offered the full array of treatment options to ensure the highest likelihood of a healthy delivery. Had the defendant doctors counseled her on all available medical interventions during her pregnancy, her son’s birth, and his subsequent period in the defendant hospital’s neonatal care unit, the plaintiff maintained that she would have elected the proper course of treatment resulting in his survival.
Last updated October 19, 2020