Roy v. Dackman
124 A.3d 169
| Md. | 2015Background
- Jakeem Roy lived at 2525 Oswego Avenue (a pre-1970 Baltimore rental) from ~8 months to ~2 years old; later blood-lead tests while at that address showed elevated levels. Exterior testing of the property showed lead on multiple locations; interior was not tested.
- Roy sued the property owners (Dackman) for negligence and related claims, alleging ingestion of chipping/flaking lead paint at Oswego caused permanent neurocognitive injury (loss of IQ, attention, memory, coordination).
- Plaintiff designated two experts: Dr. Eric Sundel (board‑certified pediatrician) to opine on medical causation and source, and Dr. Robert Simon (industrial hygienist) to opine on source. Sundel had not treated lead‑poisoned patients but had reviewed literature and reports (including a neuropsychological evaluation by Dr. Hurwitz).
- The defense moved to exclude the experts under Md. Rule 5-702 and for summary judgment; the trial court ultimately excluded Sundel as unqualified for both source and causation and granted summary judgment for defendants. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals held Sundel was qualified to testify as to medical causation (reversing exclusion on that point) but properly excluded his opinion as to the source of exposure; because a medical expert on causation remained necessary to avoid summary judgment, the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a board‑certified pediatrician (Dr. Sundel) was qualified under Md. Rule 5‑702 to testify about medical causation from childhood lead exposure | Sundel’s training, residency, fellowship, >20 years practice, review of peer‑reviewed literature, and review of neuropsychological testing make him qualified to offer causation opinions | Sundel lacks hands‑on experience treating lead‑poisoned children, has not published or lectured on lead poisoning, and thus is not sufficiently qualified | Court: Sundel is qualified to opine on medical causation; exclusion was an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Sundel was qualified to testify that Oswego Ave. was the source of Roy’s lead exposure | Sundel relied on residence age, elevated blood levels while at the residence, exterior lead detection, mother’s testimony of interior chipping, and literature linking home paint to childhood lead | Opinion based on circumstantial evidence is insufficient to rule out other sources; expert must have a factual basis/methodology to identify source | Court: Proper to exclude Sundel on source—circumstantial evidence alone did not eliminate other probable sources |
| Standard of review for expert‑qualification ruling when later deciding summary judgment | Roy argued abuse of discretion should control the court’s review of the trial court’s qualification finding | Respondents argued trial and appellate courts may review de novo whether qualifications/factual predicates support admission and summary judgment | Court: Qualification (factual) reviewed for abuse of discretion; but legal sufficiency for summary judgment reviewed de novo; here exclusion as to qualification was an abuse of discretion |
| Whether exclusion of Sundel justified summary judgment for defendants | Roy: exclusion of medical causation expert was fatal to his ability to prove causation and thus to survive summary judgment | Dackman: without Sundel, plaintiff had no competent medical causation testimony and summary judgment was appropriate | Court: Because Sundel should have been allowed to testify on medical causation (and source was covered by other evidence/experts), summary judgment was improper; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Radman v. Harold, 367 A.2d 472 (Md. 1977) (expert need not be a specialist; expertise may be based on study, observation, experience)
- Ross v. Housing Auth. of Baltimore City, 63 A.3d 1 (Md. 2013) (distinguishes medical causation from source; expert excluded as to source where methodology/factual basis insufficient)
- Hazelwood v. City Homes, 63 A.3d 713 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2013) (Court of Special Appeals finding Sundel unqualified on similar record)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford, 71 A.3d 105 (Md. 2013) (expert opinions must have sufficient factual basis and reliable methodology)
- Hamilton v. Kirson, 96 A.3d 714 (Md. 2014) (summary judgment review applies de novo when court excludes testimony for lack of factual predicate)
- Wantz v. Afzal, 14 A.3d 1244 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2011) (medical expert need not be a specialist to testify)
- Reed v. State, 391 A.2d 364 (Md. 1978) (Frye/Reed standard for novel scientific methods)