Maryland Lawsuits AgainstJanelle Cooper
Baltimore, us 21202
Janelle Cooper, M.D. is a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist formerly affiliated with Mercy Medical Center. Her specialties include hormone replacement therapy, laparoscopic surgery, and infertility treatment. Although this page is focused solely on Dr. Cooper, you can find other information relating to medical malpractice lawsuits filed against Mercy Medical Center here.
Based on the currently available data, Dr. Cooper has been named as a co-defendant in one Maryland medical malpractice case. The case is associated with her tenure at Mercy Medical Center. The entire complaint for the case, as filed with the court, is found below.
The first available complaint against Dr. Cooper lists the following allegations:
- Failing to provide a complete range of treatment options. According to the complaint, the plaintiff presented to the defendant doctor with complaints of vaginal discomfort, including painful sex and dryness. An ultrasound revealed the presence of multiple benign uterine growths known as fibroids as a primary cause of her symptoms. Despite the plaintiff’s alleged request for minimally invasive treatments to address her gynecologic issues, the complaint contends that the defendant doctor presented only two options: surgical removal of the uterus and cervix (hysterectomy) and uterine artery embolization (UAE), a procedure that involves shrinking the fibroids by blocking their blood flow.
- Failing to properly interpret a medical report. Per the complaint, the plaintiff expressed reluctance to undergo a surgical hysterectomy and requested a consult with a specialist to determine if she was a candidate for the less invasive UAE procedure. At a follow-up appointment with the defendant doctor, she was allegedly told that she was not a suitable patient for the UAE. The complaint contends that no such statement was present in the specialist’s report and in fact the specialist determined she could undergo the UAE procedure if precautions were taken afterward to monitor any fibroid growth. Based on the recommendation from the defendant doctor, the plaintiff elected to proceed with the hysterectomy under the assumption that it was the only treatment option available to her.
- Failing to properly perform a surgical procedure. The complaint contends that the defendant doctor performed a total abdominal hysterectomy on the plaintiff, despite the availability of less invasive surgical options to remove the uterus and cervix. During the surgery, the defendant doctor allegedly perforated the plaintiff’s ureter (a small tube that drains urine from the bladder). According the complaint, the defendant doctor was unaware of her error and surgically closed the plaintiff’s abdomen with no attempts to repair or treat the injured ureter.
- Failing to prevent patient injury. As alleged in the complaint, the plaintiff began to endure complications from the punctured ureter almost immediately following the surgery. Her medical issues included kidney swelling, excessive vaginal fluid leakage, incontinence, and constipation. She was not diagnosed with a perforated ureter until over a month after her hysterectomy, at which time she underwent a failed procedure to repair the puncture with a stent. The plaintiff purportedly had to use a kidney tubing system for urine drainage and wear Depends diapers due to vaginal leakage for four more months until her ureter was successfully repaired. Per the complaint, the plaintiff continued to suffer from chronic conditions including incontinence and anxiety, and subsequently lost the ability to work.
- Failing to provide informed consent. The plaintiff contends in the complaint that if the defendant doctor had adhered to appropriate standards of care in outlining all available treatment options for her gynecologic issues, she would have rejected the abdominal hysterectomy in favor of a less invasive option and thus avoided the injury to her ureter and the resulting complications.
Last updated November 2, 2020