Rochkind v. Stevenson
145 A.3d 570
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Starlena Stevenson sued property owner/manager (Rochkind, S&S, Dear) alleging childhood lead exposure at 3823 Fairview Ave caused elevated blood lead levels, IQ loss, ADHD, and economic/non-economic damages; jury awards followed two trials and judgment was reduced under Maryland’s non-economic damages cap to $1,103,000.
- First trial (Mar 2014): verdict for Stevenson; court granted partial new trial limited to damages because plaintiff’s economist (Dr. Conte) presented an undisclosed damages theory.
- Second trial (Oct–Nov 2014): jury awarded economic and non-economic damages; defense post-trial motions denied; cross-appeal on attorneys’ fees denied.
- Key expert testimony: Dr. Cynthia Hall‑Carrington (pediatrician) opined Fairview was substantial source of lead, cause of ADHD, and quantified IQ loss (5–6 points) based on epidemiologic studies; Mark Lieberman (rehab counselor) testified on vocational limitations; Dr. Conte (economist) calculated lost lifetime earnings based on Lieberman’s vocational opinion.
- Defense experts contested causation, genetic/other causes for ADHD/IQ deficits, and the methodology supporting IQ‑loss and vocational/economic opinions. Trial court admitted the experts and denied Frye‑Reed hearings; appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Partial new trial vs. full new trial | Partial new trial on damages was sufficient; liability findings should stand | Undisclosed damages opinion prejudiced entire trial; issues of liability and damages inseverable — full new trial required | Court: damages were severable from liability; partial new trial proper and scope of retrial correctly limited to quantification/nature/degree of injury |
| Admissibility of Dr. Hall‑Carrington’s source‑of‑lead opinion | Qualified pediatrician, direct evidence of lead in Fairview, and records suffice to opine Fairview was substantial source | Not a lead risk assessor; failed to investigate/ rule out other sources; unreliable foundation | Court: admission not an abuse — direct XRF evidence plus other record support source opinion |
| Admissibility of Dr. Hall‑Carrington’s medical causation (ADHD, IQ loss) | EPA, AAP, Lanphear and epidemiologic literature support causal link between low‑level lead and attention/cognitive deficits; substantial‑factor causation suffices; IQ loss can be extrapolated | ADHD largely genetic; epidemiology cannot reliably diagnose individuals or quantify individual IQ loss; Frye‑Reed should apply | Court: Frye‑Reed not required; admitted opinions under Rule 5‑702 as not novel; expert’s ADHD and IQ‑loss opinions had adequate factual/methodological foundation for jury to weigh |
| Vocational and economic opinions (Lieberman & Conte) | Reliance on medical causation and appropriate vocational methods; admissible | Lieberman unqualified to opine average HS graduate functioning; Conte’s opinions improperly rested on Lieberman; some economic methodologies excluded earlier | Court: Lieberman and Conte admissible; Conte’s Second‑trial opinion was the undisclosed opinion prompting retrial but admissibility of experts themselves was not an abuse; other parts of defense challenges properly handled by trial court |
| Use of external lifetime‑earnings studies by defense economist | Defense should be able to present literature quantifying earnings loss per blood‑lead increment to rebut Conte | Studies were not relied upon by defense expert and thus not proper bases for opinion; disclosure issues | Court: exclusion of those calculations was within discretion under Rule 5‑703 because the expert had not reasonably relied on them |
| Collateral source (DORS job‑coaching) evidence | Defense should be able to cross‑examine Conte about free DORS job‑coaching to undercut cost assumptions | Collateral‑source rule bars offset; plaintiff didn’t waive rule by introducing DORS docs | Court: collateral‑source rule applied; trial court properly precluded questions about free DORS services to offset damages |
| Attorneys’ fees under Maryland CPA | Plaintiff sought contingency fee or lodestar (high hourly rates) and expenses under CPA fee‑shifting | Defense argued CPA fees inappropriate for personal‑injury style claims and plaintiff failed to prove reasonable hours/rates | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion denying fee petition — plaintiff failed to supply adequate lodestar detail, segregate CPA hours, or justify requested rates; contingency fee and expenses not recoverable |
Key Cases Cited
- Roy v. Dackman, 445 Md. 23 (Court of Appeals) (pediatrician may be competent to testify on lead causation; distinguishes Hazelwood)
- Blackwell v. Wyeth, 408 Md. 575 (Court of Appeals) (Frye‑Reed required for novel scientific theories; examples of exclusion where consensus rejects the proffered causation)
- Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374 (Maryland adoption of Frye general‑acceptance standard)
- Stickley v. Chisholm, 136 Md. App. 305 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.) (partial new trial inappropriate where issues not fairly severable)
- Hazelwood (City Homes, Inc. v. Hazelwood), 210 Md. App. 615 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.) (expert excluded where pediatrician lacked experience and opinion speculative — later limited by Roy)
- Friolo v. Frankel, 403 Md. 443 (Court of Appeals) (lodestar approach and standards for awarding attorneys’ fees under CPA)