City Homes, Inc. v. Hazelwood
210 Md. App. 615
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2013Background
- Brittany Hazelwood sued City Homes, Inc. for injuries from lead paint exposure at 4 North Stockton; jury awarded $5.1 million, later reduced to $1.25 million due to non-economic damages cap.
- Appellant challenged multiple post-trial rulings and sanctions; the circuit court imposed sanctions totaling $10,135.45 against City Homes and $10,000 against counsel Parler, which were challenged on appeal.
- Hazelwood claimed two designated experts—Dr. Eric Sundel (pediatrics) and Christopher White (Arc Environmental)—were admissible; City Homes sought to exclude them and the Arc reports as unreliable or improperly based.
- Evidence included Arc Environmental testing (Aug 19, 2010 and Nov 2, 2010) showing lead paint; White testified as lead risk assessor; Sundel opined that 4 North Stockton was a significant source of exposure and caused IQ loss.
- Kennedy Krieger Institute 1993 testing was later disclosed; sanctions were imposed against Parler for withholding that document, leading to post-trial sanctions proceedings and appeals.
- The court reversed and remanded on sanctions-related issues, vacating sanctions against appellant and counsel, and addressed Dr. Sundel’s admissibility and the scope of White’s testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dr. Sundel’s qualification and basis | Hazelwood argued Sundel qualified as an expert in pediatrics with lead-poisoning expertise and sufficient factual basis. | City Homes argued Sundel lacked qualifications and a proper factual basis to attribute lead exposure and cognitive injuries to 4 North Stockton. | Court held Sundel was not qualified and lacked adequate factual basis; reversed admission of his testimony. |
| Sanctions against appellant | Hazelwood contended sanctions against City Homes were improper due process-wise since notice and opportunity to respond were lacking. | City Homes argued the court could sanction for discovery misconduct under inherent authority and must follow due process. | Sanctions against appellant vacated; due process concerns noted and remanded for possible Rule 2-433 sanctions. |
| Sanctions against Parler (attorney) | Hazelwood asserted sanctions against Parler were proper, given discovery violations and withholding of the 1993 Kennedy Krieger report. | City Homes argued the court lacked proper procedure to sanction an attorney and that the record failed to show bad faith. | Court reversed Parler sanctions and remanded for further consideration under Rule 2-433; held that inherent-power sanctions did not justify the amount. |
Key Cases Cited
- Radman v. Harold, 279 Md. 167 (Md. 1977) (broadly defines predictor of expert qualification—special knowledge may come from various sources)
- Giant Food, Inc. v. Booker, 152 Md. App. 166 (Md. 2003) (requires adequate factual basis and reliable methodology for expert testimony)
- Wantz v. Afzal, 197 Md. App. 675 (Md. 2011) (admissibility depends on qualifications and factual basis under 5-702)
- Taylor v. Fishkind, 207 Md. App. 121 (Md. 2012) (age alone not enough to prove lead paint causation; need substantial factual basis)
- Keene Corp. v. Hall, 96 Md. App. 644 (Md. 1983) (expert may extrapolate from third-party reports if facts support opinion)
- Milton Co. v. Council of Unit Owners of Bentley Place Condo., 121 Md. App. 100 (Md. 1998) (admissibility and reliance on reports from third parties in expert testimony)
- Brown v. Daniel Realty, 409 Md. 565 (Md. 2009) (extensive discussion of expert testimony and rule 5-702)