Maryland Lawsuits AgainstHanh Tran, M.D.

Baltimore, us 21237

This website does not represent the outcome of these lawsuits against Hanh Tran, 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.

Hanh Tran, M.D. is a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist who is affiliated with Medstar Franklin Square Medical Center. Dr. Tran provides a full range of obstetrical and gynecologic care, including pap smears, cyst removal, and menopausal symptom management. Although this page is focused solely on Dr. Tran, you can find information about medical malpractice lawsuits filed against Medstar Franklin Square Medical Center here.

Based on publicly available records and data, Dr. Tran has been named as a co-defendant in three Maryland medical malpractice cases. While two of the three Maryland circuit court complaints are available in a PDF below, here is an excerpt of the allegations:

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

  • Failing to properly perform a surgical procedure. According to the complaint, the plaintiff requested that a laparoscopic tubal clipping be performed by the defendant doctor to prevent future pregnancies. The procedure purportedly involved the placement of clips along the Fallopian tubes, thereby blocking eggs from traveling to the uterus for potential fertilization. Following the surgery, the defendant reportedly assured the plaintiff that the sterilization was a success. However, photos taken during the procedure allegedly were viewed by the defendant and showed that the clip on the right fallopian tube had been improperly placed, leaving the plaintiff fertile.
  • Deliberately misrepresenting a patient’s medical condition. Per the complaint, the plaintiff discovered she was pregnant roughly two months after the sterilization procedure. When discussing the unplanned pregnancy with the plaintiff, the defendant apparently reiterated that the sterilization was a success and theorized that the plaintiff must have been pregnant at the time of the surgery. However, during an emergency room visit about a month after the procedure, the plaintiff was allegedly given a pregnancy test which yielded a negative result. The complaint asserts that while the plaintiff was unaware of the pregnancy test and negative result, the defendant knew about the test and was therefore fully cognizant that the plaintiff became pregnant after the laparoscopic surgery.
  • Failing to prevent patient harm. As maintained in the complaint, the plaintiff made the difficult decision to have an abortion shortly after discovering she was pregnant. Roughly five months later, she became pregnant for a second time following her sterilization procedure. Although this pregnancy was also unexpected, she chose to proceed with prenatal care and began planning for a family expansion. Tragically, at about 12 weeks gestation the plaintiff experienced a miscarriage and underwent surgery the next day to remove the fetal remains. The complaint contends that this extreme emotional and physical anguish endured by the plaintiff is the direct result of medical negligence and fraud committed by the defendant doctor. Had the plaintiff’s tubal clipping been performed correctly, the complaint alleges, her chances of becoming pregnant again would have been virtually non-existent. The complaint also contains an allegation that the defendant doctor’s surgical error and deliberate attempt to conceal her mistake led to lifelong trauma for the plaintiff and her family.

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

  • Failing to properly perform a surgical procedure. According to the complaint, the plaintiff requested that a total abdominal hysterectomy be performed by the defendant doctor. She allegedly developed complications in the days after the surgery, including fever and poor bowel and bladder function. These issues reportedly continued for almost three months following the procedure and apparently developed into recurrent bladder infections and bladder leakage. Upon visiting a urologist to investigate the cause of her bladder problems, it was purportedly discovered that the plaintiff had sustained several abnormal openings between the bladder and vaginal walls, a condition known as vesicovaginal fistula. The complaint avers that the defendant doctor negligently caused the fistulas during the hysterectomy and failed to repair them.
  • Failing to properly monitor a patient’s medical condition. Per the complaint, the plaintiff had several follow ups with the defendant doctor in the month after the hysterectomy. During these follow up appointments, the plaintiff allegedly detailed her post-surgical bladder issues. However, despite these apparently concerning complaints, the defendant doctor reportedly failed to recognize and diagnose the complications as consistent with vesicovaginal fistulas.
  • Failing to prevent patient harm. As maintained in the complaint, the plaintiff endured over five months of bladder problems following the hysterectomy, including spasms, recurrent infections, and leakage. As a result, her quality of life was reportedly diminished. Although an extensive surgical repair of the vesicovaginal fistulas apparently made the bladder complications more manageable, the plaintiff maintains that she has lingering issues with control and leakage. According to the complaint, the bladder problems that the plaintiff continues to suffer from are the direct result of negligence on the part of the defendant doctor. The complaint further avers that if the defendant doctor had adhered to appropriate standards of medical care by properly executing the hysterectomy, immediately repairing any fistulas that occurred during surgery, and/or recognizing the symptoms of fistulas after the surgery, the plaintiff’s ongoing bladder difficulties would likely have been avoided.

Last updated August 16, 2021

Hanh Tran, M.D. Lawsuit Statistics


Complaint #1 - Tran-complaint.pdf

Complaint #2 - Tran-second-complaint.pdf