Expert Testimony is Changing in Maryland

by Matthew J. Focht
October 4th, 2017

            Two recent rulings from Maryland’s highest court have clarified the legal sufficiency of the data underlying expert causation testimony in lead paint cases.

            In the first such case, Stanley Rochkind v. Starlena Stevenson, No. 76, September Term, 2016 (July 11, 2017), the Court of Appeals, relying on Maryland Rule 5-702(3), held that a medical expert witness did not have a sufficient factual basis to testify that lead exposure can cause Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) generally, or that it caused the plaintiff’s ADHD specifically.  As such, the trial court erred in admitting the expert’s testimony.

            Maryland Rule 5-702 requires that expert testimony “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue[.]”  To this end, Rule 5-702 requires that a trial court evaluate “(1) whether the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education [;] (2) the appropriateness of the expert testimony on the particular subject [;] and (3) whether a sufficient factual basis exists to support the expert testimony.”  The third prong of this analysis – sufficient factual basis – includes two subfactors: an adequate supply of data and a reliable methodology.  Without adequate data and a reliable methodology, the expert’s opinions constitute nothing more than mere speculation or conjecture.

            In Rochkind, the Court of Appeals found that Plaintiff’s causation expert lacked adequate data upon which to base her opinion that lead exposure can cause ADHA.  In particular, the Court found that “[a]lthough research shows that lead exposure can cause general attention deficits and hyperactivity, these lead-caused behaviors do not necessarily indicate that an individual has ADHD because the behaviors are also symptoms of a variety of other disorders and learning disabilities.”  At best, the expert in Rochkind demonstrated an association between lead exposure and ADHD.  However, in order to be probative of general causation, an epidemiological study must “properly account[] for potential confounding factors and concludes that exposure to the agent is what increases the probability of contracting the disease.”  Because the expert did not account for potential confounding factors, including the Plaintiff’s family history of ADHD, the epidemiological studies relied upon could not support her general causation testimony.

            The second case considered by the Court of Appeals, Stewart Levitas v. Michael Davon Christian, No. 58, September Term, 2016 (July 11, 2017), reached the opposite conclusion as Rochkind.  In Levitas, the Court of Appeals found that plaintiff’s medical causation expert had a sufficient factual basis under Maryland Rule 5-702 to testify about the source of the plaintiff’s lead exposure.  Specifically, “[t]he expert considered information given to him by the plaintiff’s attorney, which included positive lead testing on the subject property, the age of the property, Maryland Department of the Environment and Department of Housing and Community Development records, the plaintiff’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene testing records, and family members’ deposition testimony, and explained how he assessed this information.  Additionally, the expert took into account the other possible source of the plaintiff’s lead exposure when developing his opinion.”  For these reasons, “the trial court abused its discretion in precluding [the expert] from testifying about source causation on the ground that his opinion lacked an adequate factual basis.”

            Similarly, Levitas’ causation expert “had the requisite qualifications and factual basis under Maryland Rule 5-702 to testify about the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s lead-caused injuries.  Because the expert was experienced in treating lead-poisoned children and familiar with current lead-poisoning research and the IQ test used to assess the plaintiff, he was qualified to testify.  A neuropsychologist’s report, medical records, and other information regarding the plaintiff and the properties [where] he lived [as] a child were an adequate factual basis for the expert to opine about the cause of the plaintiff’s cognitive impairments.  Additionally, a study on IQ loss in lead-poisoned children provided a sufficient factual basis for expert to testify about the plaintiff’s IQ loss.  Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in precluding the expert from testifying about medical causation on the grounds that he was not qualified and his opinion lacked an adequate factual basis.”

            These cases demonstrate the need for careful expert selection and preparation in complex causation cases, such as those involving lead paint exposure.  Experts must be up-to-date on the latest developments in his or her field of expertise and must be able to use the discovery record in its entirety as an adequate factual basis for their opinions.  In some cases, it may be necessary for the expert to not only to render an opinion as to causation but also to rule out competing theories of causation (such as family history).  To this end, experts should be provided with as broad a factual record as possible so as to have a strong basis for a legally sufficient causation opinion.       

Matt Focht is a trial lawyer in the firm’s Personal Injury practice group. He helps individuals who have been seriously injured in avoidable accidents recover the compensation they deserve in litigation before state and federal courts throughout Maryland and the D.C. area. Matt has deep experience in managing a broad range of high-stakes personal injury matters on behalf of victims and surviving family members, including automobile accidents, wrongful death cases and a variety of other serious accidents caused by negligence.

Contact Matthew Focht

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

Disclaimer

The JGL Law Blog is made available by the Firm and/or the law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law. The JGL Law Blog is not designed to and does not provide specific legal advice. Use of, or comments on, this Blog does not create an Attorney Client Relationship with the Firm or any of the authors of the Blog Posts.

This blog is for general informational purposes only. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA is a law firm and some of the information on the blog relates to legal topics. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA does not offer or dispense legal advice through this blog or by e-mails directed to or from this site. By using the blog, the reader agrees that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between the reader and Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA or its attorneys. The blog is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state. The information on the blog may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While the blog is revised on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. The opinions expressed at or through the blog are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. The JGL Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained on this site (including any links provided) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.

˅