Rochkind v. Stevenson
164 A.3d 254
| Md. | 2017Background
- Respondent Starlena Stevenson had elevated blood lead levels (~11–14 µg/dL) after living in rental property partly owned by Rochkind; she was later diagnosed with ADHD and experienced subsequent psychiatric issues and limited employment.
- Stevenson sued Rochkind for negligence and consumer-protection violations alleging lead exposure at the Fairview residence caused her neuropsychological problems, including ADHD; lead-based paint was found at the property.
- Pediatrician Cecilia Hall-Carrington, M.D., testified at trial that (1) studies show lead exposure causes attention problems and ADHD-like symptoms and (2) to a reasonable degree of medical probability, lead exposure caused Stevenson’s ADHD; the EPA Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (EPA-ISA) was a primary source cited.
- Trial court admitted Dr. Hall-Carrington’s general and specific causation testimony under Maryland Rule 5-702; no Frye-Reed hearing was held. The jury returned a multimillion-dollar verdict; defendant appealed and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed on key points.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed admissibility under Rule 5-702 and whether the expert had a sufficient factual basis (adequate data and reliable methodology) for opining that lead causes clinical ADHD and that it caused Stevenson’s ADHD.
- The Court of Appeals held Dr. Hall-Carrington’s testimony lacked a sufficient factual basis: epidemiological studies cited showed associations with attention deficits/hyperactivity but did not establish causation for a clinical ADHD diagnosis and failed adequately to account for confounders or diagnose by reliable methodology; remanded for new trial on damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stevenson) | Defendant's Argument (Rochkind) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of general causation testimony under Md. Rule 5-702 | EPA-ISA and related studies show a causal relationship between lead and attention deficits/ADHD symptoms; testimony is supported and reliable | Studies show at most association, not causation for clinical ADHD; testimony rests on novel or unsupported science and is inadmissible | Excluded: court held the expert lacked adequate data to support that lead causes clinical ADHD; EPA-ISA evidence showed associations and confounding, not causation, so testimony failed Rule 5-702(3) |
| Admissibility of specific causation (lead caused Stevenson's ADHD) under Md. Rule 5-702 | Expert opined to a reasonable degree of medical probability that lead exposure caused plaintiff’s ADHD, relying on general causation sources | Specific causation unsupported because general causation is not established and expert did not employ reliable methodology (e.g., differential diagnosis accounting for confounders/family history) | Excluded: specific causation depends on admissible general causation; without that, specific causation testimony was inadmissible and speculative |
| Need for Frye-Reed hearing on general causation | Not necessary because the science is not novel and is generally accepted; studies and EPA-ISA are reliable | Requested Frye-Reed hearing; argued causal link is novel and not generally accepted | Not reached on merits: Court declined to decide because Rule 5-702 exclusion made Frye-Reed unnecessary |
| Prejudice and remedy | Testimony linked ADHD to medication side effects central to damages claim; exclusion unnecessary | Admission was prejudicial to Rochkind and affected damages | Remedial holding: Admission was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial; remand for new trial on damages |
Key Cases Cited
- General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (expert opinion may be excluded where an analytical gap exists between data and conclusion)
- Roy v. Dackman, 445 Md. 23 (admissibility requires adequate data and reliable methodology under Rule 5-702)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford, 433 Md. 426 (expert opinion must be based on sufficient factual basis and reliable reasoning)
- Bomas v. State, 412 Md. 392 (proponent bears burden to show factual basis for expert testimony)
- Ross v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, 430 Md. 648 (trial court must require experts to bring more than lawyer argument to the jury; conclusory opinions insufficient)
- Joiner-related federal guidance in Daubert lineage: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (trial courts gatekeep expert scientific testimony)