76 N.E.3d 190
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- L.H., born in 2004, lived in a rental house owned by Woolf; by 2007 L.H. had elevated blood-lead (20 µg/dL) and developmental delays diagnosed as autism spectrum disorder.
- Duby (guardian) sued Woolf in 2012 alleging landlord negligence caused L.H.’s lead exposure and that lead exposure caused L.H.’s autism and other impairments.
- Duby listed Angela Boyd, R.N., as an expert; Boyd had public‑health lead case‑management experience and a master’s in molecular biology but conceded she was not qualified to diagnose autism and had not reviewed L.H.’s medical records.
- Trial court excluded Boyd’s causation opinion under Indiana Evid. R. 702 but allowed her to testify on lead‑poisoning topics generally.
- Woolf moved for summary judgment, designating Dr. Theodore Nukes’s expert opinion that L.H. was born with autism (prenatal methamphetamine exposure or genetics) and that lead did not cause or exacerbate L.H.’s autism; trial court granted summary judgment and denied Duby’s motion to correct error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Boyd’s expert causation testimony | Boyd is qualified by lead‑poisoning training/experience to opine that lead caused L.H.’s autism | Boyd lacks the medical/diagnostic credentials and methodology to opine on causation of autism | Court did not abuse discretion excluding Boyd’s causation opinion under Evid. R. 702 |
| Sufficiency of evidence on proximate cause in toxic‑tort negligence claim | Designated evidence (Boyd + other material) raises genuine factual dispute that lead caused L.H.’s autism | Dr. Nukes’s comprehensive review and exam negates lead as cause; no admissible contrary causation evidence | Summary judgment affirmed because plaintiff failed to designate admissible evidence creating a genuine issue on causation |
| Reliance on medical literature/general studies to prove causation | General studies and literature show lead can cause cognitive/behavioral harm, supporting causation inference | General literature without application to this child’s exposure, dose, timing, and alternative causes is insufficient | General literature alone did not create a genuine issue of material fact on specific causation |
| Claim for federal disclosure violations (42 U.S.C. §§ 4851–4856) | Woolf failed to disclose presence of lead; court improperly granted summary judgment on entire case | Plaintiff did not present or litigate a separate statutory disclosure claim below | Issue waived (plaintiff did not raise statute or separate claim in trial court); trial court properly entered judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Curts v. Miller’s Health Systems, Inc., 972 N.E.2d 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (nurses generally not qualified to testify on medical causation or standards of care)
- Long v. Methodist Hospital of Indiana, 699 N.E.2d 1164 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (registered nurse with specialty training not qualified to offer causation testimony on postoperative wound infection)
- Bennett v. Richmond, 960 N.E.2d 782 (Ind. 2012) (proponent must show expert s reasoning/methodology is scientifically valid and applicable)
- Gresser v. Dow Chemical Co., 989 N.E.2d 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (toxic‑tort causation requires more than temporal relationship; must account for exposure level/duration and alternative causes)
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (summary judgment review standard and burden shifting)
- DiMaggio v. Rosario, 52 N.E.3d 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (summary judgment standard; order carries presumption of validity)