My son was born in January 2011 and I had my 3rd c-section, during which the slapdash work I always suspected Dr. Holland performed on me (during my second c/s) came to light.

My O.B. explained that instead of making a low transverse cut, which she said was the safest, Dr. Holland just cut in her "line of sight." A low transverse cut is safer because this region of the uterus has less muscular fibre and is less easy to rupture in future labors. There was no reason other than carelessness for her to do this (I wasn't in distress; in fact I was kept waiting for at least 20 minutes on the O.R. table for her arrival). Furthermore, my O.B. found an aneurysm or "window", which is like bubble gum when blown, which would have ruptured at any minute.

During the c-section, my O.B. kept saying to the other doctor, "Why did she (Dr. Holland) do this? Have you seen anything like this? Come here and look at this. What is this?" The other doctor added they would never do a single layer stitch at NYU Medical Center, as Dr. Holland had done. (She was surprised that an NYU doctor did this, and I told her it wasn't an NYU doctor.) In fact, when Dr. Holland and I initially met in her office, I had requested a double stitch--part of my birth plan--so she deliberately had amnesia about that.

My O.B. said, "She (as in me) would have ruptured." And the other doctor replied, "There was a hole (in the uterus) before we made it."

Everything Dr. Holland did endangered my son's life. For no reason other than spite and carelessness. If I had gone into labor, he would have died or been permanently injured. (Furthermore, after having two quick conceptions, it took us years--post Dr. Holland--to conceive him.)

It is really frightening what surgeons like Dr. Holland get away with. We would never have known the damage she had done if I hadn't gotten pregnant again, and of course people like her count on that.

The details of what my O.B. found are in her post-op report to NYU Medical Center.