Stanley Sugarman, et al.
v. Chauncey Liles, Jr., July 31,
2018 (Court of Appeals of Maryland)
Last summer, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Rochkind
v. Stevenson, 454 Md. 277, 164 A.3d 254 (2017), holding that the trial
court abused its discretion when it admitted expert testimony linking a plaintiff’s
ADHD diagnosis with lead poisoning when the expert relied on studies that did
not adequately demonstrate a causal link between lead exposure and a general
and specific ADHD diagnosis.[1] Judge Adkins wrote for the Rochkind Court, concluding that the
expert’s testimony suffered an “analytical gap” between the data relied upon by
the expert and expert’s proffered testimony, and, therefore, should not have
been admitted. The Maryland Court of
Appeals recently issued an opinion in Stanley Sugarman v. Chauncey Liles,
Jr. in which the Court reexamined its analysis in Rochkind.
The underlying facts and procedure
in Rochkind and Sugarman are strikingly similar.
Both were lead-paint tort suits filed by minors alleging that lead
exposure caused cognitive defects in the form of attention decrements. In both trials, the respective plaintiffs
introduced expert testimony from pediatricians who reviewed, relied upon, and
based their respective opinions on findings contained in the Environmental
Protection Agency’s publication entitled “Integrated Science Assessment for
Lead” (“EPA-ISA”), which, on appeal, was the subject of intense scrutiny.
The EPA-ISA is an integrated science
assessment that collected, reviewed, synthesized, and broadly evaluated high
quality epidemiological studies and their various health outcomes. The EPA-ISA analysis reveals a causal
relationship between lead exposure and attention decrements, impulsivity, and
hyperactivity in children. The EPA-ISA
does not specifically identify types of attention decrements found, nor does it
specifically discuss processing speed or auditory encoding. The EPA-ISA also does not make a general or
specific causal connection between lead exposure and certain neuropsychological
disorders such as ADHD.
Following verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs in the Rochkind and Sugarman trials, the respective defendants appealed. On appeal, the Rochkind and Sugarman
defendants argued that the trial court erred in admitting the plaintiffs’
respective pediatric experts’ causation opinions for lack of an adequate
factual basis pursuant to Maryland Rule 5-702.
Unlike the outcome in Rochkind,
however, the Sugarman opinion
affirmed the trial court’s decision to permit the causation testimony of the
plaintiff’s pediatric expert. This
decision hinged on critical distinctions in the analyses and opinions offered
by the experts in each case.
In Rochkind, the
plaintiff’s pediatric expert testified that that the plaintiff’s lead poisoning
was a significant contributing factor to all of the plaintiff’s
neuropsychological problems, including the plaintiff’s ADHD diagnosis. The Maryland Court of Appeals noted that the
studies in the EPA-ISA do not go so far as to state that lead exposure causes
ADHD. The Court further noted
that the EPA-ISA recognized that an ADHD diagnosis is also attributable to
factors such as socioeconomic status and parenting. Without any other
scientific evidence or epidemiological studies to support the opinions that
lead exposure causes ADHD in general, the Rochkind Court held that the plaintiff’s pediatric expert’s testimony was not based an
adequate supply of data as required by Maryland Rule 5-702.
In the Sugarman trial, the
plaintiff introduced the findings of a neuropsychological examination showing
the plaintiff exhibited deficits in auditory encoding of information and
information processing speed. The plaintiff’s
pediatric and neuropsychological experts testified that these deficits are
factors of attention, within the realm of general attention deficits, and
the literature states that general attention deficits can result from lead
exposure. The plaintiff’s pediatric
expert further opined that the cognitive deficits identified by the
neuropsychological exam were caused by the plaintiff’s early lead exposure and
are permanent. In contrast with Rochkind, the Sugarman plaintiff offered no expert testimony on whether lead
exposure caused or contributed to any specific learning disability or
behavioral disorder.
The Maryland Court of Appeals held that the Sugarman plaintiff’s pediatric expert’s opinions were supported by
the findings in the EPA-ISA, and were based on an adequate factual basis
comporting with Maryland Rule 5-702. The Court explained that the Sugarman
pediatric expert was permitted to reasonably extrapolate from existing data in
support of the expert’s opinions, which is, in fact, what the Sugarman pediatric expert did when
analyzing the results of the plaintiff’s neuropsychological examination results
in concert with the review of the EPA-ISA.
The Court distinguished Sugarman
from Rochkind noting that the Sugarman plaintiff’s experts testified
to generalized attention deficits that the EPA-ISA identified as being caused
by lead exposure, rather than offering opinions that the lead exposure caused
or contributed to specific diagnoses or disorders. Accordingly, the Court found that the
pediatric expert’s opinions in Sugarman
did not suffer the same “analytical gap” as the opinions of the pediatric expert in
Rochkind.
A review of Rochkind and
Sugarman serves as an important
reminder for practitioners when vetting experts to thoroughly examine the
literature upon which experts base their opinions to ensure there are no
perceived “analytical gaps” that threaten to invalidate the admissibility of
the experts' critical opinions.
-
-Benjamin
A. Beasley, Associate Attorney
