Maryland Lawsuits AgainstSHEPPARD PRATT HEALTH SYSTEM

This website does not represent the outcome of these lawsuits against Sheppard Pratt Health System, 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.

According to Maryland Judiciary Case Search, Sheppard Pratt Health System, entered with that exact spelling, has been sued for medical malpractice 3 times and for tort claims 1 time since 2016. The exact search criteria used on Maryland Judiciary Case Search is as follows: Company: Sheppard Pratt Health System, Party Type: Defendant, Case Type: Civil, Court System: Circuit Court only, County: Default All, Filing Date: 11/01/2016-11/15/2021.

History of Sheppard Pratt Health System

Established over a century ago, the Sheppard Pratt Health System is one of the oldest psychiatric networks in the country. Its founder was Moses Sheppard, a wealthy Baltimore merchant who envisioned a mental health hospital that prioritized the dignity and comfort of patients as much as their curative treatment. After a lengthy construction period, the facility opened in 1891 as the Sheppard Asylum. The 150-bed campus in Towson, Maryland was groundbreaking for its utilization of the Kirkbride Plan, an architectural style emphasizing natural light and maximum air circulation.

The asylum began expanding five years later with a donation of nearly $2 million from the estate of philanthropist Enoch Pratt. A name change was also implemented per a stipulation in Pratt’s will, and the facility became The Sheppard and Enoch Pratt Hospital. That name would remain until the mid-1990’s when the hospital’s board of trustees voted to change it to the Sheppard Pratt Health System.   

 In 2000 another major construction project commenced to transfer and modernize the patient rooms, an undertaking that nearly doubled the size of the campus. Today the Sheppard Pratt Health System consists of its primary Towson campus and a second inpatient hospital located in Ellicott City. The network also includes several satellite facilities, including outpatient locations in Timonium and Frederick. Sheppard Pratt ranks among the best mental health institutions in the U.S. and is considered a top teaching facility for the field of psychiatry.

Statistics on Sheppard Pratt Health System

According to Baltimore Business Journal, in 2020, the following was true:

• 414 beds, licensed
• 3,332 Baltimore-area staff
• $309.05 million total net operating revenue

This information is from “Largest Health Care Systems in Greater Baltimore, Ranked by Total Net Operating Revenue in 2020” written by Maria Sieron, Baltimore Business Journal (February 26, 2021)

Some of the personal injury attorneys that regularly sue Sheppard Pratt Health System for medical malpractice are: The Law Office Of Roger J. Bennett, P.A., and Salsbury, Clements, Bekman Marder & Adkins LLC. As the system is based in Baltimore County, the majority of malpractice cases against it are filed in Baltimore County Circuit Court. If you or a loved one have been injured by Sheppard Pratt Health System, you should contact a personal injury lawyer to assess your claim.

Based on publicly available records and data, Sheppard Pratt Health System has been named as a defendant or co-defendant in three Maryland medical malpractice cases and one tort case. While the Maryland circuit court complaints are available in a PDF below, here is an excerpt of the allegations:

The first available complaint, filed on behalf of the plaintiff by her legal guardian, lists the following allegations: 

• Failing to properly evaluate a high-risk patient: As outlined in the complaint, the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital’s outpatient day treatment program following a significant self-harm event and with a history of severe psychiatric events. Over the course of three days in the program, her mental health reportedly deteriorated, and her symptoms were noted to be too acute for an outpatient day treatment program. However, despite these supposedly worrisome developments, the defendant hospital allegedly failed to complete a psychosocial evaluation of the plaintiff to determine the full extent of her condition.
• Failing to properly care for a high-risk patient: The complaint contends that after three days in the defendant hospital’s day treatment program, the plaintiff was prematurely discharged with no coordinated plan of care for her immediate safety. Soon after her discharge, she reportedly fell from a nearby hospital parking deck and sustained serious permanent injuries, including fractures, organ damage, and brain trauma. As maintained in the complaint, the defendant hospital directly contributed to these injuries due to its negligence in adequately assessing, monitoring, and treating the plaintiff’s mental health conditions.

The second available complaint, filed by the plaintiff, lists the following allegations:

• Failing to ensure patient safety and security: According to the complaint, after his voluntary admission to the defendant hospital, the plaintiff was physically attacked by another patient. As a result, he reportedly sustained face and eye injuries requiring surgical repair. The complaint contends that the attack was unprovoked and that the assailant had indicated a desire to harm surrounding patients before assaulting the plaintiff physically. It further maintains that the defendant hospital was negligent in mitigating the risks posed by the assailant.
• Failing to properly assess a potentially violent patient: Per the complaint, the patient who attacked the plaintiff had a history of substance abuse and violent criminal allegations. The complaint alleges that the defendant hospital was negligent in determining the assailant’s propensity for physical altercations and evaluating him as a potential safety risk to other patients.

  The third available complaint, filed by the plaintiff and their spouse, lists the following allegations:

• Failing to properly assess a high-risk patient: As contended in the complaint, the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital for dementia treatment. She then allegedly experienced five accidental falls in separate incidents over roughly a month while in the care of the defendant hospital. These falls occurred despite the documented care plan for the plaintiff stating she should “ambulate with assistive device/wheelchair with staff only.” Per the complaint, the defendant hospital was negligent in fulling gauging the extent of the plaintiff’s mobility issues and developing a more detailed individualized care plan to mitigate her fall risk.
• Failing to properly monitor a high-risk patient: The complaint maintains that the plaintiff’s fifth and most serious accidental fall occurred when she was left unattended by the defendant hospital’s staff and struck her head on a pole before landing on the floor. It further alleges that the defendant hospital was negligent in adequately supervising the plaintiff to ensure she did not experience an accidental fall, particularly since she had experienced several previously documented falls while in the defendant hospital’s care.
• Failing to prevent patient harm: According to the complaint, shortly after her fifth and most serious accidental fall at the defendant hospital, the plaintiff was diagnosed with a fractured right hip requiring surgical repair. As further averred in the complaint, this injury was directly caused by the defendant hospital’s negligence in assessing, monitoring, and safeguarding the plaintiff.

Last updated July 7, 2022