# Oglesby v. Baltimore School Associates

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · July 26, 2023 · 484 Md. 296

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9411478

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** July 26, 2023
- **Citations:** 484 Md. 296
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Watts
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9411478

## Opinion text

Jamaiya Oglesby v. Baltimore School Associates, et al., No. 26, September Term, 2022

LEAD-BASED PAINT – EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY – SOURCE
CAUSATION – IQ LOSS – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – Supreme Court of Maryland*
held that trial court abused its discretion by excluding testimony of plaintiff’s causation
expert witness in lead-based paint case. In ruling on motion to preclude and making
determinations as to whether expert’s opinion had sufficient factual basis, trial court
resolved genuine disputes of material fact, and, in doing so, abused its discretion. Expert’s
opinion that plaintiff’s exposure to lead-based paint at property was significant contributing
factor to plaintiff’s alleged injuries (other than IQ loss) was supported by sufficient factual
basis and admissible, as expert had adequate supply of data from which to form opinion,
and methodology expert used reliably supported opinion reached.

Supreme Court remanded case, however, for further proceedings consistent with Court’s
holding in Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1, 236 A.3d 630 (2020), for determination as
to whether methodology used by expert was sufficiently reliable to permit expert to render
specific opinion that plaintiff’s exposure to lead resulted in loss of IQ points, should
plaintiff seek to present such evidence at trial.

Having concluded that trial court abused its discretion in granting motion to preclude,
Supreme Court also held that trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Trial court’s
ruling—that plaintiff was unable to prove negligence without expert’s testimony as to
causation—was not warranted. Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that property was
reasonable probable source of exposure to lead and that exposure was significant
contributing factor to alleged injuries to establish prima facie case of negligence,
irrespective of admissibility of expert’s opinion as to IQ loss.

*
At the time of the grant of the petition for a writ of certiorari in this case, the Supreme
Court of Maryland was named the Court of Appeals of Maryland. At the November 8,
2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a constitutional amendment changing
the name of the Court of Appeals of Maryland to the Supreme Court of Maryland. The
name change took effect on December 14, 2022.
Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Case No. 24-C-18-000268

Argued: March 2, 2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND*

No. 26

September Term, 2022
______________________________________

JAMAIYA OGLESBY

v.

BALTIMORE SCHOOL ASSOCIATES, ET
AL.
______________________________________

Fader, C.J.
Watts
Hotten
Booth
Biran
Gould
Eaves,

JJ.
______________________________________

Opinion by Watts, J.
______________________________________

Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Filed: July 26, 2023
Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this
document is authentic.

2023-07-26
14:15-04:00
Gregory Hilton, Clerk

*At the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a constitutional
amendment changing the name of the Court of Appeals of Maryland to the Supreme Court
of Maryland. The name change took effect on December 14, 2022.
This case arises out of a plaintiff’s attempt to use expert testimony in a lead-based

paint case to establish a property as a source of exposure to lead and a significant factor

contributing to her alleged injuries including a loss of intelligence quotient (“IQ”) points.

Jamaiya Oglesby, Petitioner, initiated a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

against Baltimore Schools Associates,1 Crowninshield Management Corporation, Jolly

Company, Inc., and the Estate of Mendel Friedman (together, “Respondents”) for

negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and a violation of the Maryland Consumer

Protection Act. Ms. Oglesby alleged that Respondents, who owned and managed an

apartment building (the “property”) in which she lived as a child, were liable for injuries

she sustained as a result of exposure to lead-based paint at the property. Ms. Oglesby

designated Sandra Hawkins-Heitt, Psy.D., as an expert in the areas of clinical psychology

and neuropsychology. Dr. Hawkins-Heitt evaluated Ms. Oglesby and concluded that she

suffered from cognitive impairments or deficiencies in multiple areas and had an IQ of 80.

Ms. Oglesby designated as a vocational expert Mark Lieberman, M.A., a Certified

Rehabilitation Counselor. Mr. Lieberman evaluated Ms. Oglesby and found that she had

numerous limitations and qualified as a “Cognitively Disabled” person.

Ms. Oglesby designated Steven Elliot Caplan, M.D., as an expert in the area of

pediatric medicine to testify with respect to causation. Dr. Caplan reviewed 24 sets of

records pertaining to Ms. Oglesby, including the reports of Dr. Hawkins-Heitt and Mr.

1
Although the case captions in both appellate courts identify the party as “Baltimore
School Associates,” the parties in their briefs use the name “Baltimore Schools
Associates.”
Lieberman, and authored a report setting forth his opinions. Dr. Caplan concluded that Ms.

Oglesby’s likely exposure to lead at the property was a significant contributing factor to

bringing about the cognitive deficiencies and impairments found by Dr. Hawkins-Heitt and

Mr. Lieberman as described in his report, and to a loss of approximately 3 to 4 IQ points.

In reaching his opinion as to Ms. Oglesby’s IQ loss, Dr. Caplan relied on two studies—the

Canfield study2 and the Lanphear study3—which conclude, among other things, that, in

children, there is an inverse relationship between blood-lead level (“BLL”) and IQ.

Respondents moved to preclude Dr. Caplan’s opinions and testimony, and for

summary judgment. Respondents contended that Dr. Caplan lacked a sufficient factual

basis for the opinion that Ms. Oglesby was exposed to lead at the property and that the

alleged exposure caused her injuries. In addition, Respondents argued that the

methodology Dr. Caplan used to calculate Ms. Oglesby’s IQ loss was not reliable or

generally accepted. After a hearing, conducted remotely, at which the circuit court

simultaneously considered motions to preclude expert opinions and testimony and motions

for summary judgment in Ms. Oglesby’s case and a second unrelated case, and a motion

2
See Richard L. Canfield, Charles R. Henderson, Jr., Deborah A. Cory-Slechta,
Christopher Cox, Todd A. Jusko, and Bruce P. Lanphear, Intellectual Impairment in
Children with Blood Lead Concentrations below 10 μg per Deciliter, 348 New Eng. J. of
Med. 1517 (Apr. 17, 2003), available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC4046839/ [https://perma.cc/ JV55-68C3].
3
See Bruce P. Lanphear, Richard Hornung, Jane Khoury, Kimberly Yolton, Peter
Baghurst, David C. Bellinger, Richard L. Canfield, Kim N. Dietrich, Robert Bornschein,
Tom Greene, Stephen J. Rothenberg, Herbert L. Needleman, Lourdes Schnaas, Gail
Wasserman, Joseph Graziano, and Russell Roberts, Low-Level Environmental Lead
Exposure and Children’s Intellectual Function: An International Pooled Analysis, 113
Env’t Health Persps. 894 (July 2005), available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC1257652/ [https://perma.cc/8LT6-NZZQ].

-2-
for summary judgment in a third separate case, the court granted both of Respondents’

motions in Ms. Oglesby’s case. The circuit court found that Dr. Caplan lacked a sufficient

factual basis for his opinions due to what the court described as “factual issues in both of

the cases, which [] normally could be presented to a jury” and that, without Dr. Caplan’s

testimony as to causation, Ms. Oglesby was unable to establish a prima facie case of

negligence. Ms. Oglesby appealed,4 and the Appellate Court of Maryland5 affirmed the

judgment of the circuit court. Ms. Oglesby filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which

we granted.

After a careful review of the record, we hold that in ruling on the motion to preclude

and making determinations as to whether Dr. Caplan’s opinions had a sufficient factual

basis, the circuit court resolved genuine disputes of material fact. We conclude that Dr.

Caplan’s opinion regarding Ms. Oglesby’s exposure to lead at the property being a

significant contributing factor to her injuries, other than IQ loss, was supported by a

sufficient factual basis and admissible, as Dr. Caplan had more than an adequate supply of

data from which to form the opinion and the methodology he employed was reliable. As

such, the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the motion to preclude and in

4
The circuit court granted the motion to preclude and the motion for summary
judgment as to Ms. Oglesby’s claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation. Ms.
Oglesby consented to entry of summary judgment as to the claim for a violation of the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act, so that judgment would be final. On brief in this
Court, Ms. Oglesby advises that she appealed the circuit court’s exclusion of Dr. Caplan’s
testimony and grant of summary judgment only as to the negligence claim.
5
At the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a
constitutional amendment changing the name of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
to the Appellate Court of Maryland. The name change took effect on December 14, 2022.

-3-
determining that Dr. Caplan’s testimony that Ms. Oglesby’s exposure to lead at the

property was a significant contributing factor to her injuries was inadmissible.

We remand the case, however, for further proceedings consistent with this Court’s

holding in Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1, 236 A.3d 630 (2020), for a determination as

to whether the methodology Dr. Caplan employed under the Canfield and Lanphear studies

reliably supports the conclusion that Ms. Oglesby’s exposure to lead resulted in a loss of

approximately 3 to 4 IQ points, should Ms. Oglesby seek to introduce such testimony at

trial.

Having concluded that the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the motion

to preclude, we hold that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment. The circuit

court’s ruling—that Ms. Oglesby was unable to prove negligence without Dr. Caplan’s

testimony as to causation—was not warranted. Ms. Oglesby presented sufficient evidence

that the property was a reasonably probable source of her exposure to lead and that the

exposure was a significant contributing factor to her injuries, other than IQ loss, to establish

a prima facie case of negligence. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate

Court and remand the case to that Court with instruction to remand the case to the circuit

court for trial or further proceedings under Rochkind, 471 Md. 1, 236 A.3d 630, with

respect to Dr. Caplan’s opinion as to IQ loss, should Ms. Oglesby seek to introduce such

evidence at trial.

BACKGROUND

Residential History

At the outset, we point out that all of the material facts concerning Ms. Oglesby’s

-4-
alleged exposure to lead-based paint—such as whether there was lead present at the

property at the time Ms. Oglesby lived there; whether Ms. Oglesby came into contact with

lead at the property through peeling or chipping paint; and whether she suffered injury due

to any such exposure—were disputed in the circuit court.6

Ms. Oglesby alleges that she suffered lead-based paint poisoning while residing at

2000 East North Avenue in Baltimore City, Apartment 202, for approximately three years

when she was a child.7 Ms. Oglesby was born on April 12, 1998. For the first eight months

of her life, Ms. Oglesby lived with her mother, Casey Powell, at her grandmother’s (Ms.

Powell’s mother’s) house on East Jefferson Street. At deposition, Ms. Powell testified that

the house on East Jefferson Street was in good condition and that she did not recall any

issue with peeling or flaking paint.8

6
The information concerning Ms. Oglesby’s residential history set forth in the
Background section of the opinion is derived from Ms. Oglesby’s complaint, deposition
testimony of witnesses, Respondents’ motion to preclude expert testimony and motion for
and memorandum in support of summary judgment, Ms. Oglesby’s response and
memorandum in opposition to the motions, and exhibits attached to the motions and
memoranda.
7
In the complaint, Ms. Oglesby alleged that she was exposed to lead in the common
areas of the property as well as in the apartment, and referred to the apartment as “the
leased premises.”
8
According to Respondents, shortly after Ms. Oglesby’s birth, Ms. Powell moved
out of the East Jefferson Street address on her own and lived at a different address—706
Milton Avenue. Respondents also allege that in December 1998, when she applied to live
at 2000 East North Avenue, Ms. Powell listed 338 Mason Court as her prior residence in
an application to transfer her Baltimore Gas & Electric service to the property.
Respondents contend that Dr. Caplan failed to rule out the East Jefferson Street,
Milton Avenue, and Mason Court locations as contributing to Ms. Oglesby’s first BLL and
that multiple sources of exposure to lead may have contributed to her alleged injuries. As
we explain below, these contentions, which, in part, constitute factual disputes concerning
sources of Ms. Oglesby’s exposure to lead, do not render Dr. Caplan’s opinion as to the
source and cause of Ms. Oglesby’s injuries inadmissible.

-5-
On December 18, 1998, when Ms. Oglesby was eight months old, she and Ms.

Powell moved into 2000 East North Avenue, Apartment 202.9 Respondents owned and

managed the apartment building. At deposition, Ms. Powell testified that the apartment

was in poor condition when she moved in, and she did not do a walk-through with the

landlord before signing the lease and receiving a key.10 According to Ms. Powell, when

she moved in, she noticed peeling or chipping paint “everywhere” in the building,

“[t]hroughout the hallways[, t]he stairwells[, s]ome outdoors[,]” and “[s]ome of [the]

apartments ha[d] peeling paint on it.” Ms. Powell testified that the front door of the

building and the vestibule inside the back door of the building also contained peeling

paint.11 Ms. Powell testified that she did not see her children touch or put any peeling paint

9
Ms. Oglesby also had two brothers who lived in the apartment. Ms. Oglesby’s
brother Keshar was born in May 1999, and her brother Quran was born in December 2000.
Ms. Oglesby’s brothers lived in the apartment until the family moved in January or
February 2002.
10
According to a Crowninshield Management Corporation “Move-In Move-Out
Inspection” form, which is Exhibit 5 to the memorandum in support of Respondents’
motion for summary judgment, a move-in inspection of the apartment occurred on
December 18, 1998. No deficiencies were noted on the form, and the form was signed by
a representative of Crowninshield Management Corporation and purportedly by Ms.
Powell.
11
Ms. Oglesby attached as exhibits to the memorandum in support of her response
to the motion for summary judgment and motion to preclude excerpts of depositions taken
in other lead-based paint cases involving Baltimore Schools Associates and 2000 East
North Avenue.
At a deposition taken in Ikem Ravenell v. Balt. Schs. Assocs., et al., No. 24-C-16-
007111 (Cir. Ct. Balt. City), Tasha Transou, who lived in Apartment 103 in the building,
testified that the building had paint chipping on all of the doors, “chipping paint all falling
in the hallway[,]” chipping, flaking paint on the metal railing along the steps leading up to
the building, and that “the paint was chipping and peeling all the way through the hallway
when you walked through to get to [her] apartment[.]” Ms. Transou testified that she was

-6-
in their mouths, but indicated that Ms. Oglesby may have picked up peeling paint in a

hallway, where she played.

According to Ms. Powell, although the apartment was in poor condition when she

moved in, she did not recall any issue initially with peeling or chipping paint inside the

apartment. Within six or seven months, though, Ms. Powell noticed peeling paint on the

walls and windowsills and in the bathroom of the apartment, and that the paint in a closet

was peeling from moisture. Ms. Powell testified that, approximately a year after she moved

into the apartment, management repainted the building’s common areas and the doors of

the apartments, but the “paint that they put over the peeling paint started peeling off again.”

Ms. Powell testified that, at the time of the repainting, she asked management to repaint

her window, the closet, and other locations inside the apartment, but management repainted

only one window inside the apartment.

A Crowninshield Management Corporation annual unit inspection report, in an

exhibit attached to Ms. Oglesby’s opposition to the motions for summary judgment and to

preclude, indicates that, on October 7, 2001, a representative of the company conducted an

annual inspection of the apartment and noted that components in every room were

unacceptable and needed rehabilitation, including doors, walls, floors, windows, and the

the last person who lived in Apartment 103 before the building was shut down due to the
poor living conditions.
At a deposition taken in connection with another case brought against Respondents,
Jua’Drek Addison v. Balt. Schs. Assocs., LLP, et al., No. 24-C-17-004504 (Cir. Ct. Balt.
City), Juanita Addison testified that she would bring her son with her every day to visit her
sister, who lived in the building, and that the building contained peeling paint.

-7-
bathroom ceiling.12 Ms. Powell testified that in or around January or February 2002, when

Ms. Oglesby was three years and nine or ten months old, after having stayed briefly with

her brother in December 2001, the family moved out of the apartment.13 Ms. Powell

testified that the apartment building was being closed down and they were told to relocate.14

It is undisputed that the building was not well maintained and that in early 2002,

Respondents closed the building rather than make necessary repairs.15

12
Annual unit inspection reports dated October 19, 1999, and October 27, 2000,
which were Exhibits 8 and 9, respectively, to the memorandum in support of Respondents’
motion for summary judgment, indicated that the components in the apartment were in
acceptable condition on those dates.
13
Ms. Powell testified that, in December 2001, after a robbery occurred at the
apartment, she and her children, including Ms. Oglesby, stayed with her brother, who lived
in the 2800 block of Lafayette, for “a couple weeks[.]” Ms. Powell testified that she did
not know of any issues with peeling paint at her brother’s house while she stayed with him.
14
Ms. Powell also testified that while she and Ms. Oglesby resided at the property,
she and her siblings did “weekend swaps[,]” in which the adults took turns caring for each
other’s children. During the weekend swaps, Ms. Oglesby would spend time at her uncle’s
(Ms. Powell’s brother’s) house once or twice a month in the 2800 block of Lafayette, and
she would also spend time each month at another uncle’s house and her aunt’s house.
Respondents contend that the Lafayette residence was a source of exposure to lead for Ms.
Oglesby, as her uncle brought a lead-based paint action, alleging that his two sons were
exposed to lead at the residence. As explained below, this contention, which, in part,
constitutes a factual dispute, does not render Dr. Caplan’s opinion as to the source and
cause of Ms. Oglesby’s injuries inadmissible.
15
An article from the November 24, 2001 edition of The Baltimore Sun, Vision for
dwellings becomes another city housing nightmare by Eric Siegel, was attached as an
exhibit to Ms. Oglesby’s memorandum in support of her opposition to the motion for
summary judgment and motion to preclude. According to the article, in a letter to City
housing officials in June 2001, the president of Crowninshield Management Corporation
stated that the six Schoolhouse Apartment buildings were “extremely difficult to maintain”
and that Crowninshield was unable to manage the building at 2000 East North Avenue to
“anyone’s minimum standards.” The article stated that, on November 7, 2001, the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) notified the City’s
Housing Authority that it had violated its obligation to keep the buildings in safe and
sanitary condition, that all six buildings were in unacceptable condition, and that the

-8-
Ms. Powell testified that, beginning in January or February 2002, she and Ms.

Oglesby resided at 1713 Lemmon Street. Ms. Powell described the Lemmon Street address

as a three-story row house that was “newly renovated[,]” where “[e]verything was fresh[,]”

with “[n]othing peeling[.]” Ms. Powell testified that, sometime in the winter of 2003-2004,

the family moved from Lemmon Street to a house on Mosher Street. According to Ms.

Powell, the Mosher Street house had peeling paint in the basement, where she did not allow

her children to go, in a pantry in the kitchen, and “a little bit” in a back bedroom where

there had been a roof leak and water damage. Ms. Powell also recalled peeling paint and

dust on the wooden floors of the Mosher Street house. In 2005, the family moved from the

Mosher Street house, in part because the landlord would not make repairs to the property.

Ms. Powell testified that, afterward, she and Ms. Oglesby lived at a property on Elmora

Street followed by a property on North Ellwood.16

Ms. Oglesby’s BLLs

Ms. Oglesby’s BLLs were tested on three occasions between 1999 and 2004. A

sample of Ms. Oglesby’s blood collected on April 19, 1999, while Ms. Oglesby resided in

the apartment, showed that Ms. Oglesby had a BLL of 2 micrograms per deciliter

building at 2000 East North Avenue, where at least two-thirds of 37 units were vacant, was
in the worst shape. According to the article, HUD ordered the Housing Authority to create
a plan to restore the properties within 30 days and, 5 days later, Crowninshield issued
eviction notices and informed City officials that it was closing all six buildings.
16
On brief, Respondents contend that Ms. Powell “believed” that Ms. Oglesby had
an elevated BLL while living on North Ellwood and that Ms. Oglesby “believes” her
physician determined that she had an elevated BLL in high school. Respondents assert
that, in forming his opinion, Dr. Caplan did not take into account the two subsequent BLLs.
Respondents do not identify, however, any BLL test results other than the three described
below, which Dr. Caplan relied on.

-9-
(“μg/dL”).17 A sample of Ms. Oglesby’s blood collected on March 27, 2002, shortly after

she moved out of the apartment, showed that Ms. Oglesby had a BLL of 5.5 µg/dL. Finally,

a sample of Ms. Oglesby’s blood collected on August 20, 2004 showed that Ms. Oglesby

had a BLL of 4 µg/dL.

The Property: 2000 East North Avenue

The building was constructed in 1890 and first served as a schoolhouse in Baltimore

City. As of March 1979, lease and development agreements between the City of Baltimore

and Baltimore Schools Associates provided for Baltimore Schools Associates to convert

six vacant school buildings, including the one at 2000 East North Avenue, into apartment

buildings and to maintain the properties as rental apartments for low-income tenants

through 2030. The six buildings became known as the Schoolhouse Apartments.18

According to Ms. Oglesby’s response to Respondents’ motions, because the

17
BLLs “are measured in micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL) of blood” and, “[a]s of
2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention consider[ed BLLs] greater than 5
μg/dL to be elevated.” Levitas v. Christian, 454 Md. 233, 238 n.3, 164 A.3d 228, 231 n.3
(2017) (citations omitted). As of 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
“use[d] a blood lead reference value (BLRV) of 3.5 micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL) to
identify children with [BLLs] that are higher than most children’s levels.” Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Blood Lead Reference Value (last reviewed Dec. 2, 2022),
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/data/blood-lead-reference-value.htm [https://perma.cc/
3DXX-YTYR]. See also Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC updates blood
lead reference value to 3.5 μg/dL (last reviewed Dec. 16, 2022)
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/news/cdc-updates-blood-lead-reference-value.html
[https://perma.cc/X5B5-94RV] (“On October 28, 2021, CDC updated the blood lead
reference value (BLRV) from 5.0 μg/dL to 3.5 μg/dL.”).
18
The project was subsidized through a $4.1 million loan from the City, and rents
were to be paid by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
through the City’s Housing Authority under the Section 8 program.

- 10 -
building at 2000 East North Avenue was built before 1950 and not certified as lead-free,

Respondents registered the building with the Maryland Department of the Environment’s

Lead Poisoning Prevention Program in February 1995, which demonstrated that the

building was not, in fact, lead-free. Ms. Oglesby pointed out that the building received

lead-based paint risk reduction certificates, rather than lead-free certificates, from the

Maryland Department of the Environment on December 4, 1996, June 16, 1998, and

January 28, 1999.

Records indicate the building at 2000 East North Avenue has been inspected or

tested for lead by three different entities on three separate occasions, once before Ms.

Oglesby’s residency and twice afterward. In 1989, the Baltimore City Health Department

issued an “Emergency Violation Notice and Order to Remove Lead Nuisance” for

Apartment G-2 in the building after it had been determined by the Department that a child

who frequented the apartment had “an abnormal” BLL and an inspection of the unit showed

that “it contain[ed] lead[-]based paint.” The Department ordered the removal of lead-based

paint from the building’s front exterior doors, front vestibule door and frame, rear exterior

doorframes, and west exit doors and drainpipes.

On April 13, 2011, Arc Environmental, Inc., a company providing inspection and

consulting services, conducted a lead-based paint inspection of Apartment 203 and other

areas of the building. On April 20, 2011, Arc Environmental issued a “Lead-based Paint

Survey Report,” concluding that lead-based paint above the Maryland standard was

detected on window jambs in the living room and two bedrooms in Apartment 203.

Apartment 203 was the only apartment tested by Arc Environmental. Lead-based paint

- 11 -
above the Maryland standard was also detected, however, on the first- to second-floor rear

stairs baluster and newel post, the first-floor rear hallway wall, the second-floor hallway

window jamb, and the first-to-second floor front stairs window casing.

On April 17 and 18, 2012, Green Street Environmental, a Maryland-licensed lead

inspection contractor, conducted a lead-specific X-ray fluorescence analysis of painted

building components at 2000 East North Avenue. On April 20, 2012, Green Street

Environmental issued a report, indicating that 84 areas throughout the building contained

lead-based paint. In floor plans attached to the report, apartments and other areas such as

stairways and hallways are identified in numerical order, starting with “1,” on each floor

of the building, and are called “rooms” in the report. In other words, in the report, former

apartments are not identified by the numbers that they had when occupied by residents.19

On the second floor, there are 12 rooms identified by numbers 1 through 12. Two

of the rooms are stairways: room 1 and 7. Room 2 is a hallway. Room 8 is a large area

bearing a notation that part of it is destroyed and inaccessible. The remaining rooms on

the second floor are rooms 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Green Street Environmental

provided the following floor plan for the second floor of the building:

19
In a Rental Property Registration form for the Maryland Department of the
Environment’s Lead Poisoning Prevention Program completed in February 1995, the
apartment units in 2000 East North Avenue were identified, at that time, by the following
numbers: G1 through G5, 101 through 114, 201 through 214, and 301 through 304.
According to the information on the form, there were apartments on the ground floor, first
floor, second floor, and third floor of the building.

- 12 -
According to the report, rooms that had been apartments on both the first and second

floors of the building contained lead-based paint on windowsills, window casings, and

window troughs in living rooms and bedrooms, on living room, bedroom, and bathroom

- 13 -
walls and wainscots, and on kitchen and apartment storage room walls. With respect to

the second floor, the report states that locations in rooms 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 11 tested

positive for lead-based paint. The only rooms on the second floor that did not test positive

for lead-based paint were rooms 1 (a stairway), 2 (a hallway), 8 (a large area marked partly

destroyed and inaccessible), and rooms 10 and 12 (potentially former apartments). In the

report, Green Street Environmental stated that areas of the building that were not accessible

for inspection “likely contain[ed] components that would test positive for Lead[-]Based

Paint.”

Dr. Caplan’s Report and Deposition

In a report dated December 26, 2019, Dr. Caplan concluded that Ms. Oglesby’s

“likely exposure to lead at 2000 E. North Ave is a significant contributing factor to her lead

intoxication” and to her impairments or “difficulties” described in the report. Dr. Caplan

concluded that Ms. Oglesby “was exposed to environmental lead and had academic and

behavioral problems in school, attentional issues, and symptoms of depression.” Dr.

Caplan explained that Dr. Hawkins-Heitt performed a neuropsychological evaluation of

Ms. Oglesby on January 28, 2019 and determined that her areas of impairment included

“visual and working memory, visual attention speed, visual motor integration and copying

skills, encoding and recognition of verbal information, recall of complex visual

information, and categorical verbal fluency,” and that she had a full scale IQ score of 80,

which is “at the lowest end of the low average range.” Dr. Caplan reported that, “according

to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the American Academy of

Pediatrics, the Maryland Department of the Environment, and the World Health

- 14 -
Organization[,]” “[l]ead is a causal or likely causal factor” for academic and behavioral

problems, attentional issues, and symptoms of depression.

Dr. Caplan explained that Mr. Lieberman performed an employability assessment

of Ms. Oglesby on September 13, 2019, and determined she performed low or below

average in areas related to word knowledge, language arts, and verbal reasoning, and that

she would be “classified as a Cognitively Disabled female by the American Community

Survey of the U.S. Census Bureau.” In addition to his opinion concerning her other

impairments, Dr. Caplan concluded that, “[e]xtrapolating from the data of Canfield and

Lanphear, an IQ deficit of about 3 to 4 IQ points can be attributed to [Ms. Oglesby’s] lead

exposure.”

In the report, prior to setting forth his opinion about Ms. Oglesby’s exposure to lead

at the property being a significant contributing factor to her alleged injuries, Dr. Caplan

discussed information concerning Ms. Oglesby’s residential history and the condition of

2000 East North Avenue. Dr. Caplan reported that Ms. Oglesby lived at 2000 East North

Avenue from December 1998 until late 2001 or early 2002. Dr. Caplan noted that the

building at 2000 East North Avenue was built before 1950 and had “multiple inspections

indicating the presence of lead based paint.” Dr. Caplan reported that on October 5, 1989,

the Baltimore City Health Department issued an emergency lead paint violation notice; on

April 13, 2011, an inspection performed by Arc Environmental found multiple areas

containing lead; and on April 17 and 18, 2012, and again from June 30 to July 3, 2014,

Green Street Environmental analyzed the building and found multiple areas containing

lead-based paint.

- 15 -
Based on his review of the records provided to him, Dr. Caplan concluded that lead

paint “was accessible” to Ms. Oglesby “during her tenancy” at the building. Dr. Caplan

explained that Ms. Powell “described the apartment as being in poor condition with peeling

and chipping paint throughout the hallways and stairwells as well as from the doors” and

that paint in the apartment “began to peel about six months after she moved in.” Dr. Caplan

noted that some repainting was performed in the building and on one window in Ms.

Oglesby’s apartment; however, chipping and peeling of the paint occurred after the

repainting. Dr. Caplan observed that the October 7, 2001 annual inspection for the

apartment “indicated multiple rooms needing rehabilitation.” Dr. Caplan also noted that

“multiple other children who lived at 2000 E. North Ave from the late 1980’s to the early

2000’s suffered from lead intoxication.”

As to other properties, Dr. Caplan stated that, in late 2001 or 2002, Ms. Oglesby

moved to the Lafayette location for a few weeks before moving to Lemmon Street, and that

both of those properties were reported to have “had no peeling paint.” Dr. Caplan indicated

that Ms. Oglesby had “no significant visitations to other properties” during the time that

she resided at 2000 East North Avenue.

At a deposition taken on February 25, 2020, Dr. Caplan verified that, prior to

completing his report, he reviewed 24 items pertaining to the case, including the

depositions of Ms. Powell and Ms. Oglesby,20 and that he reviewed an additional 5 items

20
The items that Dr. Caplan reviewed before completing his report included the
following documents pertaining to Ms. Oglesby: Maryland Department of the Environment
records; Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (now the Maryland

- 16 -
before deposition.21 Dr. Caplan testified that his opinion was that Ms. Oglesby was

exposed to lead at 2000 East North Avenue, that she had suffered “sequelae from all the

exposure to lead that she’s had[,]” and that she had incurred an IQ deficit of approximately

3 to 4 points, i.e., that Ms. Oglesby’s IQ score would have been 83 or 84.22

Department of Health) records; University of Maryland Medical Center records; Total
Health Care medical records totaling 30 pages; Dr. Hawkins-Heitt’s report; a report from
Mr. Lieberman concerning Ms. Oglesby’s vocational capabilities, limitations, and future
earning potential; and a report from Michael A. Conte, Ph.D., an expert in the areas of
economics and forensic economics designated by Ms. Oglesby. In addition, Dr. Caplan
reviewed, among other things: Ms. Powell’s tenant file totaling 114 pages; the “Property
Card” for 2000 East North Avenue; Green Street Environmental’s report; Arc
Environmental’s report; Maryland Department of the Environment records concerning
2000 East North Avenue totaling 21 pages; records of the Maryland Department of the
Environment’s Lead Poisoning Prevention Program for 2000 East North Avenue totaling
43 pages; Maryland Department of the Environment inspection certificates for Unit 208 of
2000 East North Avenue totaling 25 pages; and Maryland Department of the Environment
records concerning Ikem Ravenell and 2000 East North Avenue totaling 28 pages.
21
The 5 additional items reviewed by Dr. Caplan prior to deposition were: a
psychological evaluation report from Neil Hoffman, Ph.D.; Dr. Hoffman’s deposition and
exhibits; Mr. Lieberman’s deposition and exhibits; Dr. Conte’s deposition; and his own
report on Ms. Oglesby.
22
The deposition transcript shows that the following exchange occurred between
Respondents’ counsel and Dr. Caplan as to Ms. Oglesby’s IQ loss:

[RESPONDENTS’ COUNSEL:] Going on to the next paragraph you
referenced the testing of [Ms. Oglesby] with an IQ score of 80 and you agree
that an IQ score of 80 is in the low average range?

[DR. CAPLAN:] It’s the lowest number in the low average range, yes.

[RESPONDENTS’ COUNSEL:] Am I correct that the range for low average
is 80 to 89?

[DR. CAPLAN:] Correct.

[RESPONDENTS’ COUNSEL:] So it is your opinion that after the alleged
lead exposure her IQ would have been 83 or 84?

- 17 -
Dr. Caplan testified that he reviewed “data from Lanphear in his pooled analysis as

well as Canfield from a 2003 article” and that he “extrapolated from the data that they put

forth” and determined a result. Although Dr. Caplan did not specifically testify to this, his

calculations demonstrate that he determined that the Lanphear and Canfield studies indicate

that every 1 μg/dL in a BLL leads to a loss of 0.62 or 0.74 IQ points, respectively. Dr.

Caplan testified that he calculated, based on the average of Ms. Oglesby’s BLLs, 3.8

µg/dL,23 that Ms. Oglesby would have lost approximately 2.4 (3.8 times 0.62) IQ points

according to the Lanphear study or 2.8 (3.8 times 0.74) IQ points according to the Canfield

study.

Dr. Caplan calculated that, based on Ms. Oglesby’s highest or peak BLL, 5.5 µg/dL,

she would have lost approximately 3.4 (5.5 times 0.62) or 4.1 (5.5 times 0.74) IQ points

according to the Lanphear and Canfield studies, respectively. In sum, Dr. Caplan used Ms.

Oglesby’s average and peak BLLs, and concluded that, under the Lanphear study,

multiplied by a factor of 0.62, her loss of IQ points was 2.4 to 3.4 points, and that, under

the Canfield study, multiplied by a factor of 0.74, her loss of IQ points was 2.8 to 4.1 points.

Dr. Caplan rounded the numbers to 2 to 3 points and 3 to 4 points, respectively.

Dr. Caplan testified that Ms. Oglesby’s BLL of 5.5 μg/dL was pertinent to the East

[DR. CAPLAN:] Approximately.

It is clear that, in this exchange, Dr. Caplan confirmed his opinion concerning an IQ loss
of 3 to 4 points.
23
The average of the results of Ms. Oglesby’s three BLL tests (i.e., 2, 5.5, and 4
µg/dL) was approximately 3.8 µg/dL.

- 18 -
North Avenue address, as her blood was tested two to three months after she moved out of

the building. Dr. Caplan explained that Ms. Oglesby moved “to a place that did not have

peeling and chipping paint” and that it was “very likely” that the East North Avenue

address was responsible for her BLL of 5.5 μg/dL. Dr. Caplan testified that Ms. Oglesby’s

BLL “might have been even higher two months earlier and then started to fall during those

two to three months that she left.” When asked about Ms. Oglesby’s IQ loss, Dr. Caplan

testified that, even with a three-point IQ loss, going from an IQ of 83 to 80, Ms. Oglesby’s

“neuro executive functioning has been affected” and she would be “functioning at a little

bit lower level[.]”

The Circuit Court’s Ruling

On April 29, 2020, the circuit court conducted a hearing on Respondents’ motions.

In a single hearing, the circuit court heard argument on motions to preclude expert opinions

and testimony and motions for summary judgment in Ms. Oglesby’s case and a second

unrelated case, and a motion for summary judgment in a third unrelated case. In all three

cases, plaintiffs who were represented by Ms. Oglesby’s counsel had sued Respondents,

claiming injuries due to lead-based paint exposure at different locations, 2000 East North

Avenue, 249 Aisquith Street, and 511 South Bond Street. See Tybria Cheley v. Balt. Schs.

Assocs., et al., No. 24-C-18-000313 (Cir. Ct. Balt. City); Dwanshayne Johnson v. Balt.

Schs. Assocs., et al., No. 24-C-18-001928 (Cir. Ct. Balt. City). At the hearing, the circuit

court granted the motions to preclude Dr. Caplan’s opinions and testimony in Ms.

Oglesby’s case and in Johnson.

In granting the motions, the circuit court ruled on Ms. Oglesby’s case and the

- 19 -
Johnson case together. The circuit court began by stating: “As it relates to the two Motions

to Preclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Caplan, the Court has had an opportunity

to review the pleadings.” The circuit court observed that Levitas v. Christian, 454 Md.

233, 164 A.3d 228 (2017) shows that “a qualified expert can rely on other research and can

rely on another doctor’s report[.]” The circuit court stated that Levitas was different,

though, ruling:

However, the difference here, in Levitas there was -- the issue in
Levitas was the expert’s use of -- well, a couple things. One is using --
relying on a report of another doctor, and also relying on a particular type of
research, which I think was Lanphear in that case, and there had been some
question, I think about it.
But the bottom line was the Court found a qualified expert can rely on
other research and can rely on another doctor’s report, and things like that.
That’s different from what we have in this case.
What we have in this case is there -- it’s the opposite of relying on the
research that was cited by the expert in this particular case. So at the outset
let me say Rule 5-702 allows expert testimony to be admitted. There are
three factors that have to be satisfied, the third and most relevant here is
whether there is a sufficient factual basis to support the expert testimony.
For the most part, the case law will say that once you have a qualified
expert their -- the factual basis generally will go before a jury because it is
up to a jury to weigh the credibility of the expert. And that is generally based
on what is it -- whatever it is that they use to reach their conclusions in their
opinions. It’s proper for cross-examination and they jury can decide, “Well,
you know, he looked today, [sic] but he didn’t look at B, this doesn’t, you
know.” The jury gets the opportunity then to evaluate that credibility.
The problem that we have in this case is that there are a couple of
things, particularly as it relates to a factual basis. Again, some of what is
being argued by Defendants could be for the jury. But then there are other
things, particularly like in the Johnson case, I mean, it’s undisputed that he -
- some of what he relied on was just incorrect. The facts -- they -- it was just
incorrect information that he relied on.
And also, in both of the cases he does not use all of the available blood
level -- blood lead level information in formulating his IQ loss opinions. And
then notwithstanding that, he uses methodology that has not been shown to
be accepted. As a matter of fact, it’s directly and expressly contradictory to
that which he actually identifies as generally accepted research in the field.

- 20 -
And the problem that this Court has, he offers no explanation as to why he
did it. He offered no support for using that -- those calculations in that way.
And also again, there’s nothing to support that -- the way that he chose
to interpret, I guess if you will, for the methodology that he chose in this case
is acceptable, and also not contrary to that, which again, he cited.
So that combined with the fact that there are some issues as it relates
to the facts that he uses before he employs this methodology I think makes
this a situation for which the Court can find that his opinion and his testimony
is unreliable and shouldn’t be presented to a jury.
And so for those reasons in each of the two cases, Ms. Oglesby and
Mr. Johnson, the Court will grant the Motion to Preclude the Opinion
Testimony of the Witness, Dr. Steven Caplan.

Ms. Oglesby’s counsel immediately asked the circuit court for clarification of its

ruling, pointing out that there were two separate cases. Counsel asked: “I just want to make

sure that the record is clear when you stated that Dr. Caplan, you said that it’s undisputed

that some of what he relies on is incorrect, and you said that specific to Johnson. That is

not specific in the Oglesby case; is that correct?” The circuit court responded:

So specific to Johnson when I said as it relates to incorrect
information, based on what was presented by the defendant. Although, the
Court also finds that -- I think the defense, just to be clear, has presented --
what’s the word I’m trying to use? That there are issues, if you will, with the
facts and the information that was gathered, and how it was gathered, and
who he spoke to, and who he didn’t speak to.
I think he’s present -- the defense has presented issues, and they are
more typical and would more likely, as it relates to both case [sic]. And those
would more likely be placed in front of a jury, which is very different from
the completely incorrect information.
But just to be clear, the basis of the Court’s ruling is not only when
you combine those issues with the issue of the use of the methodology, the
Court believes that together that makes his testimony and opinion inherently
unreliable. And so it is a combination of factual issues and the expert’s
methodology for both cases. But the incorrect information was presented to
the Court, for what I believe is undisputed incorrect information, in the
Johnson case. That’s the best I can give you on that.

Later, during argument on the motion for summary judgment, Ms. Oglesby’s

- 21 -
counsel sought clarification as to whether Dr. Caplan would be permitted to render an

opinion that “2000 East North Avenue was a substantial contributing factor in brin[g]ing

about” Ms. Oglesby’s BLLs. The circuit court responded unequivocally that Dr. Caplan

was “precluded from giving any opinion testimony, and that is more so because of the

factual issues in both of the cases, which again, normally could be presented to a jury.”

Specifically, the circuit court stated:

So in this particular instance, the Court is ordering that the doctor be
precluded from giving any opinion testimony, and that is more so because of
the factual issues in both of the cases, which again, normally could be
presented to a jury. And in this particular case, if we were to parse it out, we
could, but I don’t believe that is appropriate. Or if there is a way to sort of
parse out the two. And so this Court’s ruling is that the doctor give no
opinion testimony based on the information gathered in these two cases.

Ms. Oglesby’s counsel again sought clarification and the following occurred:

THE COURT: Okay. Well, I don’t know how to be any more clear. In each
of the two cases, exclusive of the other, the Court made findings that were a
combination of problems with the facts, as well as problems with the
methodology. And the Court, in either case, in both cases, and separately in
each case, is finding that the issues with the facts are not going to be parsed
out separately for him to give opinion testimony on other things.
The Court has ruled that he’s not to give opinion testimony in either
of the cases at all. That’s the best I can give you for the record. So with him
not giving --

[MS. OGLESBY’S COUNSEL]: Okay. Can -- can you please --

THE COURT: -- opinion testimony --

[MS. OGLESBY’S COUNSEL]: -- for the --

THE COURT: -- I would ask that you proceed to your defense of the
summary judgment please.

[MS. OGLESBY’S COUNSEL]: Okay. There has been no -- for [Ms.]
Oglesby there’s been no issue regarding any incorrect facts assumed by Dr.

- 22 -
Caplan. I think that was an issue only addressed by [Respondents’ counsel]
in the [] Johnson matter, as far as the visitation period.
However, just for the record, it is undisputed that [Ms.] Oglesby was
at Apartment 202 of 2000 East North Avenue from December 1998 through
December 2001. It is undisputed that lead was found inside 2000 East North
Avenue subsequent to the ownership and management by Defendants of
these properties. It’s undisputed that there’s a Baltimore City Health
Department violation notice that found lead-based paint in 1989. That there
was -- ARC Environmental found lead in the unit of 203. The lead was found
throughout 2012 Green Street Environmental.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court granted the motion for summary

judgment as to the negligence claim in Ms. Oglesby’s case, concluding that Ms. Oglesby

could not prove negligence without expert testimony on causation. On the same day, the

circuit court issued orders, stating in both orders that the motions were granted “for the

reasons stated on the record[.]”

Ms. Oglesby filed a motion to alter or amend, or in the alternative for

reconsideration of, the circuit court’s orders, which the circuit court denied. Ms. Oglesby

filed a notice of appeal.

Opinion of the Appellate Court of Maryland

On August 9, 2022, the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the circuit court’s

judgment, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr.

Caplan’s testimony or err in granting summary judgment. See Jamaiya Oglesby v. Balt.

Sch. Assocs., et al., No. 0130, Sept. Term, 2021, 2022 WL 3211044, at *8 (App. Ct. Md.

Aug. 9, 2022). The Appellate Court explained that the case involved three areas of disputed

facts: (1) whether there was any lead-based paint at 2000 East North Avenue at the relevant

time, (2) whether Ms. Oglesby was exposed to any lead that may have been present at the

- 23 -
building through contact with deteriorated paint, and (3) whether Ms. Oglesby incurred

any injury from exposure to lead while living at the building. See id. at *4-5. According

to the Appellate Court, the circuit court found the disputed data to be inadequate to form

the basis of Dr. Caplan’s opinions and, as a result, excluded his expert testimony. See id.

at *5. The Appellate Court stated:

Given the disputed nature of the evidence regarding the presence of lead in
Apartment 202, the disputed nature of the evidence regarding Oglesby’s
exposure to peeling paint, and the disputed nature of the evidence regarding
any injury suffered as a result—combined with our deferential standard of
review based on Levitas, Rochkind II, and Matthews . . . —however, we
cannot say that the circuit court abused its broad discretion in finding that Dr.
Caplan lacked an adequate supply of data.

Oglesby, 2022 WL 3211044, at *5 (cleaned up). In reaching its conclusion, the Appellate

Court stated: “[O]ur view is that these disputes made for a close question.” Id. at *5.

With respect to Dr. Caplan’s opinion concerning Ms. Oglesby’s IQ loss, the

Appellate Court explained that the Canfield and Lanphear studies

have been frequently relied upon in previous lead paint cases, and Maryland
courts have repeatedly held that a properly qualified expert witness can rely
on the Lanphear Study methodology, as well as other accepted scientific
research, as a factual basis for an opinion that a plaintiff’s elevated [BLLs]
caused the loss of a specific number of IQ points.

Id. at *6 (cleaned up). The Appellate Court stated that the circuit court’s “quarrel” with

Dr. Caplan’s methodology was not that he relied on the studies, but that he had used them

in a way that was not generally accepted and he had “offered no explanation for his

methodology.” Id. (cleaned up). The Appellate Court concluded that, given the deferential

abuse of discretion standard of review, the circuit court was within the bounds of its

discretion in finding Dr. Caplan’s methodology for calculation of Ms. Oglesby’s IQ loss

- 24 -
unreliable. See id. at *7. The Appellate Court concluded that the circuit court did not err

in granting summary judgment because, without Dr. Caplan’s testimony, Ms. Oglesby

could not make a prima facie case of negligence, as she could not connect her exposure to

lead at 2000 East North Avenue to her alleged impairments. See id. at *8.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

On September 6, 2022, Ms. Oglesby petitioned for a writ of certiorari, raising the

following four issues:

l. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it took factual issues away
from the jury and resolved genuine disputes of material fact by ruling that
Petitioner’s medical expert lacked an adequate supply of data to opine as to
the source and source causation of Petitioner’s lead exposure, when there was
substantial evidence for a jury to evaluate, including direct evidence of lead
at the subject property, evidence of numerous areas of deteriorated paint,
evidence that Petitioner lived in the subject property for three years and was
exposed to and ingested lead resulting in her elevated [BLLs] and injury?

2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it took factual issues away
from the jury and resolved genuine disputes of material fact by ruling that
Petitioner’s medical expert’s opinion regarding Petitioner’s IQ loss was
inadmissible, when Petitioner’s medical expert relied on studies that
Maryland courts have repeatedly sanctioned?

3. Did the trial court err when it granted summary judgment after
resolving genuine disputes of material fact related to the expert witness’
source, source causation and IQ loss opinions and excluded Petitioner’s
expert witness from testifying entirely when the jury could make the source
determination and the expert had rendered numerous other opinions wherein
jury could have found that Petitioner was injured from her exposure to and
ingestion of lead?

4. Did the [Appellate] Court [] err in holding that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion when it acted as the jury, inappropriately resolved
genuine disputes of material facts and excluded the testimony of Petitioner’s
expert witness in its entirety and that the trial court did not err in subsequently
granting summary judgment?

- 25 -
On November 18, 2022, we granted the petition. See Oglesby v. Balt. Sch. Assocs., 482

Md. 142, 285 A.3d 848 (2022).

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

This case involves a challenge to the admissibility of expert opinion under Maryland

Rule 5-702(3) and Frye-Reed that originated before the issuance of Rochkind, 471 Md. 1,

236 A.3d 630. In Rochkind, id. at 5, 236 A.3d at 633, this Court discontinued use of the

“general acceptance” standard for admissibility of expert testimony set forth in Frye v.

United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) and Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374, 391 A.2d 364

(1978) and adopted the standard set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509

U.S. 579 (1993) and its progeny.

Before Rochkind, appellate courts reviewed a trial court’s decision as to the

admissibility of expert testimony under two different standards of review, with a trial

court’s determinations under Frye-Reed reviewed de novo and a trial court’s

determinations under Maryland Rule 5-702 reviewed for abuse of discretion. See

Rochkind, 471 Md. at 37, 236 A.3d at 651. After Rochkind, id. at 37, 236 A.3d at 651, this

Court reviews a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude expert opinion for an abuse of

discretion. This Court has described an abuse of discretion as occurring “where no

reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court[,]” Md. Bd. of Physicians

v. Geier, 451 Md. 526, 544, 154 A.3d 1211, 1221 (2017) (cleaned up), or when “the

decision under consideration [is] well removed from any center mark imagined by the

- 26 -
reviewing court and beyond the fringe of what that court deems minimally acceptable[,]”

Wilson v. John Crane, Inc., 385 Md. 185, 199, 876 A.2d 1077, 1084 (2005) (cleaned up).

“An appellate court reviews without deference a trial court’s grant of a motion for

summary judgment, reviews the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,

and construes any reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts against the

moving party.” State v. Rovin, 472 Md. 317, 341, 246 A.3d 1190, 1204 (2021) (cleaned

up). Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any

material fact and [] the [moving] party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Md. R.

2-501(a).

Admission of Expert Testimony Generally

Maryland Rule 5-702 provides that “[e]xpert testimony may be admitted, in the form

of an opinion or otherwise, if the court determines that the testimony will assist the trier of

fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” In making that

determination, the trial court must determine: “(1) whether the witness is qualified as an

expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, (2) the appropriateness of

the expert testimony on the particular subject, and (3) whether a sufficient factual basis

exists to support the expert testimony.” Md. R. 5-702 (paragraph breaks omitted).

The third factor, the existence of a sufficient factual basis, has been interpreted as

encompassing two sub-factors—whether the expert had an adequate supply of data and

whether the expert used a methodology that was reliable. See Sugarman v. Liles, 460 Md.

396, 415, 190 A.3d 344, 354 (2018); Rochkind, 471 Md. at 22, 236 A.3d at 642. Absent

either sub-factor, an expert’s opinion is inadmissible. See Rochkind, 471 Md. at 22, 236

- 27 -
A.3d at 642. We have held that, to satisfy the requirement of a reliable methodology, “an

expert opinion must provide a sound reasoning process for inducing its conclusion from

the factual data and must have an adequate theory or rational explanation of how the factual

data led to the expert’s conclusion.” Sugarman, 460 Md. at 415, 190 A.3d at 355 (citation

omitted).

In addition, in determining whether an expert has a sufficient factual basis to offer

an opinion, a court may consider whether there is too great an analytical gap between the

data relied upon and the opinion proffered. See Rochkind v. Stevenson, 454 Md. 277, 289,

164 A.3d 254, 261 (2017). The data or information upon which an expert relies must

provide factual support for the opinions reached. See Sugarman, 460 Md. at 427, 190 A.3d

at 362 (“To bridge the analytical gap, an expert’s testimony must have a sufficient factual

foundation. It is permissible for an expert to reasonably extrapolate from existing data

provided that a sufficient factual basis for that opinion exists.” (Citations omitted)). But

testimony may not be the ipse dixit conclusion of the expert. See id. at 415, 190 A.3d at

355 (“Conclusory or ipse dixit assertions are not helpful—an expert must be able to

articulate a reliable methodology for how [the expert] reached [the] conclusion.” (Cleaned

up)). Also, pursuant to Maryland Rule 5-703(a), “[a]n expert may base an opinion on facts

or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed.”

I. The Factual Basis for Dr. Caplan’s Opinion

Ms. Oglesby contends that, in excluding Dr. Caplan’s testimony, the circuit court

abused its discretion by concluding that Dr. Caplan relied on incorrect information or that

there were problems with the facts Dr. Caplan relied on, and in doing so resolved genuine

- 28 -
issues of disputed fact in favor of Respondents. Ms. Oglesby argues that the information

that Dr. Caplan relied on was not incorrect, but rather was disputed and consisted of facts

that, if believed by the jury, provided a sufficient factual basis for Dr. Caplan’s testimony.

Respondents contend that the circuit court properly excluded Dr. Caplan’s

testimony because, in their view, Dr. Caplan’s opinions were based on “limited”

information provided by Ms. Oglesby’s counsel and, therefore, lacked a sufficient factual

foundation. Respondents argue that Dr. Caplan failed to consider other potential sources

of exposure to lead-based paint for Ms. Oglesby and merely assumed that Ms. Oglesby was

exposed to lead at the property. Respondents maintain that the circuit court did not reject

the accuracy of information that Dr. Caplan relied on, but rather concluded that Dr. Caplan

did not have an adequate supply of data for his opinions.

For two reasons, we agree with Ms. Oglesby that the circuit court abused its

discretion in excluding Dr. Caplan’s testimony: (1) the record demonstrates that the circuit

court impermissibly resolved issues of disputed fact in excluding Dr. Caplan’s opinion;

and (2) Dr. Caplan’s opinion with respect to causation (other than as to Ms. Oglesby’s IQ

loss) was supported by a sufficient factual basis.

A. The Circuit Court Resolved Disputed Issues of Fact

The circuit court abused its discretion in excluding Dr. Caplan’s testimony based on

its assessment that there were factual issues in the case, which “normally could be

presented to a jury[,]” but which in its view rendered the testimony inadmissible. In

Frankel v. Deane, 480 Md. 682, 703-04, 281 A.3d 692, 705 (2022), we recently held that

the trial court erred in precluding an expert’s testimony and concluded that the trial court

- 29 -
“improperly took sides in a credibility contest between” the defendants on one hand and

the plaintiff on the other hand and “impermissibly gave” the defendants “the benefit of

favorable inferences drawn from evidence susceptible to more than one interpretation.” In

discussing whether a sufficient factual basis existed to support expert testimony under

Maryland Rule 5-702(3), we explained that the factual basis for an expert’s opinion may

“come from facts obtained from the expert’s first-hand knowledge, facts obtained from the

testimony of others, and facts related to an expert through the use of hypothetical

questions.” Id. at 700, 281 A.3d at 703 (cleaned up). We stated that “experts are permitted

to express an opinion based upon facts assumed but not in evidence when the question is

asked, if such facts are later proved in the case.” Id. at 700-01, 281 A.3d at 703 (cleaned

up). Notably, “[t]his applies to disputed facts as well.” Id. at 701, 281 A.3d at 703. In so

concluding, we explained that, in Kruszewski v. Holz, 265 Md. 434, 445, 290 A.2d 534,

540 (1972), we stated:

[T]he proper way to submit a hypothetical question is to ask the witness to
presume the truth of certain facts as if they were not the subject of dispute.
These may still be contested in actuality but the inquiry is proper as long as
there is evidentiary support for the facts which the expert is told to assume
the veracity of and evaluate in rendering his opinion. Of course, any
assumption made must be grounded on a fair summation of the material facts
in evidence and those material facts must be sufficient in scope for the
witness to formulate a rational opinion. In such a situation the jury is aware
of the premise upon which the opinion is based and can determine whether
that assumption was valid. If it is not, the opinion of the expert is
disregarded.

Frankel, 480 Md. at 701, 281 A.3d at 703-04.24

24
Ms. Oglesby contends that Parkway Neuroscience & Spine Inst., LLC v. Katz,

- 30 -
In this case, the record demonstrates that, in ruling that Dr. Caplan did not have an

adequate factual basis for his opinion, the circuit court resolved disputed issues of fact.

The circuit court expressly ruled that Dr. Caplan was “precluded from giving any opinion

testimony, and that is more so because of the factual issues” that could normally go to a

jury. In addition, the circuit court determined that information Dr. Caplan relied on was

“incorrect[.]” We are aware that Respondents contend that the circuit court excluded Dr.

Caplan’s opinions “not because it found [Respondents’] evidence more credible than [Ms.]

Oglesby’s evidence,” but because it determined that the evidence upon which Dr. Caplan

relied was “limited” or insufficient under Maryland Rule 5-702(3). We are not persuaded,

however, by Respondents’ explanation of what the circuit court meant in ruling that Dr.

Caplan relied on “incorrect information” and in finding that there were facts that could

normally be submitted to the jury but that would not be in this case.

The circuit court’s ruling can be viewed in three parts: its initial ruling and its

responses to Ms. Oglesby’s counsel’s two requests for clarification. In initially ruling that

Dr. Caplan relied on incorrect information and that there were issues with the facts, the

circuit court did not explain what it meant, identify what the incorrect information was or

factual issues were, or state whether the finding about incorrect information applied to both

Abosch, Windesheim, Gershman & Freedman, P.A., 255 Md. App. 596, 283 A.3d 753
(2022), cert. granted, 482 Md. 534, 288 A.3d 1231 (2023) presents a similar issue involving
a trial court having resolved issues of disputed fact in excluding expert testimony. This
Court granted certiorari, and heard oral argument in Katz, Abosch, Windesheim,
Gershman & Freedman, P.A., and Mark E. Rapson v. Parkway Neuroscience and Spine
Inst., LLC, No. 30, Sept. Term, 2022, on May 4, 2023. Because Katz is pending, we will
not comment on the case.

- 31 -
Ms. Oglesby’s case and Johnson’s, just Johnson’s, or just Ms. Oglesby’s case, or to only

Dr. Caplan’s opinion concerning IQ loss or to all of his opinions. The most specific

reference to what the circuit court deemed the factual issues to be was the court’s statement

that, in both of the cases, Dr. Caplan had not used all available BLLs. Yet, in this case, Dr.

Caplan’s report and deposition testimony show that he considered each of the three BLLs

available in the record. The circuit court’s observation lends itself to the conclusion that,

as to Ms. Oglesby’s case, the circuit court resolved what appeared to be a dispute of fact

between the parties—whether Ms. Oglesby had other or higher BLL results later in her life

that were not included in the record. Due to the nature of the circuit court’s initial ruling,

Ms. Oglesby’s counsel immediately sought clarification and pointed out that there were

two separate cases.

When Ms. Oglesby’s counsel sought clarification as to whether the circuit court’s

statement about incorrect information applied to the Johnson case and not Ms. Oglesby’s

case, the circuit court compounded the confusion by responding, among other things, that

the defense had presented issues “as it relates to both case[s]” and “those would more likely

be placed in front of a jury, which is very different from the completely incorrect

information.” The circuit court stated that, for both cases, “it is a combination of factual

issues and the expert’s methodology[,]” “[b]ut the incorrect information was presented to

the Court, for what I believe is undisputed incorrect information, in the Johnson case.”

Conceivably, the circuit court’s response might somehow lend itself to the

interpretation, as Respondents allege, that the circuit court intended to rule that Dr. Caplan

relied on incorrect information only in the Johnson case and not in Ms. Oglesby’s case.

- 32 -
But, another interpretation of the circuit court’s ruling is that the court intended to rule that

Dr. Caplan relied on incorrect information in both cases and on “undisputed” incorrect

information in Johnson’s case. This was not, however, the last explanation given by the

circuit court in response to a request for clarification.

Later, during argument on the motion for summary judgment, when Ms. Oglesby’s

counsel sought clarification as to whether Dr. Caplan would be permitted to render an

opinion that 2000 East North Avenue was a substantial contributing factor to Ms.

Oglesby’s BLLs, the circuit court responded that Dr. Caplan would be precluded from

giving any opinion testimony whatsoever “because of the factual issues in both of the cases,

which again, normally could be presented to a jury.” With this response, the court left no

room to doubt that its ruling that there were issues with the facts that would normally go to

the jury applied to both Ms. Oglesby’s case and Johnson’s. The circuit court stated that in

Johnson and this case, “exclusive of the other,” the court had “made findings that were a

combination of problems with the facts, as well as problems with the methodology.” The

circuit court once more refused to identify or describe the factual problems that in its view

precluded Dr. Caplan’s testimony. Instead, the circuit court stated that, “in either case, in

both cases, and separately in each case,” it was “finding that the issues with the facts are

not going to be parsed out separately for him to give opinion testimony on other things.”

In the end, what can be gleaned from the circuit court’s ruling is that it determined

that there were factual issues that could normally go to the jury, but would not in this case.

Because the circuit court declined to explain or “parse” what the issues with the facts were,

the court did not expressly identify the factual problems or how it resolved them. Implicit

- 33 -
in the circuit court’s decision to exclude Dr. Caplan’s testimony in its entirety, based on

issues with the facts, instead of only his testimony concerning Ms. Oglesby’s IQ loss, is

that the court resolved in Respondents’ favor factual disputes such as whether there was

lead present at the property at the time that Ms. Oglesby lived there, whether Ms. Oglesby

came into contact with lead at the property through peeling or chipping paint, and whether

Ms. Oglesby was potentially exposed to lead at other locations and the condition of those

properties.

As our holding in Frankel, 480 Md. at 700-01, 281 A.3d at 703-04, demonstrates,

where there is evidentiary support for the facts, an expert is permitted to express an opinion

based on disputed facts, and questions may be asked of an expert in the form of a

hypothetical in which an expert may presume the truth of certain facts as if they were not

disputed. See also Fed. R. Evid. 702, advisory committee’s notes to 2000 amendment

(“When facts are in dispute, experts sometimes reach different conclusions based on

competing versions of the facts. The emphasis in the amendment on ‘sufficient facts or

data’ is not intended to authorize a trial court to exclude an expert’s testimony on the

ground that the court believes one version of the facts and not the other.”). In short, a trial

court is not permitted to resolve disputes of material fact in determining whether a

sufficient factual basis exists to support an expert’s opinion. Doing so is a clear abuse of

discretion.

B. Sufficient Factual Basis

Although the facts were greatly disputed, Ms. Oglesby produced more than

sufficient evidence that lead was present in the building at 2000 East North Avenue, that

- 34 -
she was exposed to lead-based paint at the property, and that the property was a source of

her elevated BLLs and alleged injuries (other than her IQ loss) to provide a sufficient

factual basis for Dr. Caplan’s opinions. Before addressing the factual basis for Dr.

Caplan’s testimony, it is helpful to discuss principles of causation in lead-based paint cases.

Causation in lead-based paint cases may be proven by showing that the defendant’s

negligence was a “substantial factor” in causing the plaintiff’s injury. Ross v. Hous. Auth.

of Balt. City, 430 Md. 648, 667, 63 A.3d 1, 12 (2013) (cleaned up). We have held that a

customary theory of specific causation25 in a lead-based paint case can be conceived of as

a series of links: “(1) the link between the defendant’s property and the plaintiff’s exposure

to lead; (2) the link between specific exposure to lead and the elevated [BLLs;] and (3) the

link between those [BLLs] and the injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff.” Ross, 430

Md. at 668, 63 A.3d at 12. The first, second, and third links have sometimes been referred

to as source, source causation, and medical causation, respectively. See, e.g., Rogers v.

Home Equity USA, Inc., 453 Md. 251, 265, 160 A.3d 1207, 1215 (2017). With respect to

the first link, the source of a plaintiff’s exposure to lead, it may be established either with

or without expert testimony. See Ross, 430 Md. at 669, 63 A.3d at 13 (“[T]he link between

a defendant’s property and a plaintiff’s childhood exposure to lead paint and dust may be

established through circumstantial evidence, even if expert testimony is not available.”).

Indeed, even the second or third link may potentially be established without expert

25
“General causation addresses whether a particular substance can cause the kind of
injury suffered by the plaintiff[,]” and “[s]pecific causation addresses whether the
substance actually caused the plaintiff’s injury.” Sugarman, 460 Md. at 415-16, 190 A.3d
at 355 (citations omitted).

- 35 -
testimony. See, e.g., id. at 668, 63 A.3d at 13 (“Expert opinion testimony could be helpful

in establishing any of the links and might sometimes be essential in proving the second and

third links.” (Footnote omitted)).

To avoid summary judgment in a lead-based paint case, “a plaintiff must

demonstrate only a reasonable probability as to each of these links”—a plaintiff is not

required to irrefutably establish them. Rogers, 453 Md. at 265, 160 A.3d at 1215 (citation

omitted). Case law has recognized two ways in which a plaintiff in a lead-based paint case

can establish the subject property as a reasonably probable source of the plaintiff’s lead

exposure and resulting elevated BLLs. In Dow v. L & R Props., Inc., 144 Md. App. 67,

76-77, 796 A.2d 139, 144-45 (2002), the Appellate Court of Maryland held that a plaintiff

can defeat a motion for summary judgment by presenting evidence that the subject property

is the only possible source of the plaintiff’s lead exposure. With the second method, if

there are allegedly multiple possible sources of lead exposure, a plaintiff can produce

“enough evidence to establish that it is reasonably probable that the subject property

contributed to [the plaintiff’s] lead poisoning.” Rogers, 453 Md. at 266, 160 A.3d at 1216.

In such cases, a plaintiff can “rule in” the subject property as a reasonably probable source

through either direct or circumstantial evidence. Id. at 266, 160 A.3d at 1216 (citation

omitted).

Source and Source Causation

In this case, Ms. Oglesby sought to introduce Dr. Caplan’s expert testimony with

respect to all three of the causation links. Even though, as Ms. Oglesby argues on brief,

there was other evidence with respect to the property being a source of her exposure to

- 36 -
lead, Ms. Oglesby sought to use Dr. Caplan’s testimony to assist in establishing the first

causal link, the link between the property and her exposure to lead, i.e., Ms. Oglesby sought

to use Dr. Caplan’s testimony to assist in “ruling in” 2000 East North Avenue. In his report,

Dr. Caplan concluded that Ms. Oglesby’s “likely exposure to lead at 2000 E. North Ave is

a significant contributing factor to her lead intoxication and, therefore, to her” impairments.

And, at deposition, Dr. Caplan testified that Ms. Oglesby’s second BLL of 5.5 µg/dL was

related to her residency at the building. In reaching these conclusions, Dr. Caplan did not

offer the opinion that 2000 East North Avenue was the sole source of Ms. Oglesby’s

exposure to lead paint; rather, the substance of his report and testimony demonstrates that

Dr. Caplan’s opinion was, as stated, that Ms. Oglesby’s likely exposure to lead at the

building was a significant contributing factor to her injuries. In other words, Ms. Oglesby

endeavored to use Dr. Caplan’s expert testimony and other evidence to establish a

reasonable probability that exposure to lead-based paint at 2000 East North Avenue

contributed to her alleged injuries—to rule in the property as a source of her exposure.

In reaching the conclusion that Ms. Oglesby’s likely exposure to lead at 2000 East

North Avenue was a significant contributing factor to her injuries, Dr. Caplan’s report and

deposition testimony show that he relied on data, including: (1) independent test results

showing the presence of lead in the building both before and after Ms. Oglesby’s residency;

(2) reports of Crowninshield and others indicating that the building was in poor or bad

condition during the time of Ms. Oglesby’s residency; (3) the testimony of Ms. Powell and

others regarding chipping and peeling paint in the apartment and the building; (4) Ms.

Oglesby’s BLLs; and (5) Dr. Hawkins-Heitt’s and Mr. Lieberman’s reports. Dr. Caplan

- 37 -
explained in his report:

[Ms. Oglesby] lived at 2000 E. North Ave from December 1998 through late
2001 or early 2002. This is a building built before 1950 with multiple
inspections indicating the presence of lead based paint. The Baltimore City
Health Department issued an Emergency Lead Paint Violation Notice on
October 5, 1989. Arc Environmental performed an inspection on April 13,
2011 and found multiple areas containing lead. Arc Environmental also
performed inspections of multiple properties on the 2000 block of E. North
Ave and found lead based paint in multiple areas of the seven properties.
Green Street Environmental analyzed 2000 E. North Ave from April 17-18,
2012 and again from June 30, 2014 to July 3, 2014. Multiple areas containing
lead based paint were identified during both inspections. Furthermore,
multiple other children who lived at 2000 E. North Ave from the late 1980’s
to the early 2000’s suffered from lead intoxication. For [Ms. Oglesby] the
lead paint was accessible during her tenancy. Her mother described the
apartment as being in poor condition with peeling and chipping paint
throughout the hallways and stairwells as well as from the doors. In her
apartment the paint began to peel about six months after she moved in. Some
repainting was performed in the hallways, stairways, and on one window
inside her apartment. However, the chipping and peeling restarted after the
repainting. Indeed the annual inspection dated 10/7/01 indicated multiple
rooms needing rehabilitation. [Ms. Oglesby] moved in late 2001 or 2002 to
2800 Lafayette for a few weeks before moving again to 1713 Lemmon Street,
both of which had no peeling paint. There were no significant visitations to
other properties for [Ms. Oglesby] during this time.

In his report, Dr. Caplan set forth the dates and results of Ms. Oglesby’s BLL tests

and explained that her BLLs were:

4/19/99 2 mcg/dl venous
3/27/02 5.5 mcg/dl venous
8/20/04 4 mcg/dl venous

In forming his opinion about Ms. Oglesby’s exposure to lead at the property, Dr.

Caplan relied on sources of information, not connected to Ms. Oglesby or Ms. Powell,

showing the presence of lead in the building both before and after Ms. Oglesby’s residency.

Specifically, Dr. Caplan reported that in October 1989 (nearly a decade before Ms. Oglesby

- 38 -
lived in the building), the Baltimore City Health Department issued an emergency violation

notice for the building. According to Baltimore City Health Department records which

were among the items reviewed by Dr. Caplan, the Health Department issued the violation

notice for Apartment G-2 after determining that a child who visited the apartment had an

abnormal BLL and an inspection of the apartment showed that it contained lead-based

paint.

Similarly, Dr. Caplan reported that in April 2011 (nine years after Ms. Oglesby

moved from the building), Arc Environmental conducted inspections of multiple properties

in the 2000 block of East North Avenue and found lead-based paint in seven of the

properties. According to the Arc Environmental report, which was one of the items

reviewed by Dr. Caplan, in April 2011, a lead-based paint inspection of Apartment 203 and

other areas of the building resulted in findings that lead-based paint above the Maryland

standard was detected on window jambs in the living room and in two bedrooms in

Apartment 203 and in certain common areas of the building, including on the first-to-

second floor rear stairs baluster and newel post and on the second-floor hallway window

jamb.

Dr. Caplan noted in his report that, in 2012 and 2014, Green Street Environmental

analyzed the property and identified multiple areas containing lead-based paint. According

to Green Street Environmental’s April 2012 report, the company tested components of the

building for the presence of lead-based paint and found that 84 areas throughout the

building contained lead-based paint. Green Street Environmental’s report showed that lead

was found on every floor of the building in numerous locations, including in rooms that

- 39 -
would previously have been apartments. Green Street Environmental’s report and second-

floor floorplan demonstrated that, of the rooms on the second floor that did not test positive

for lead-based paint—namely, rooms 1 (a stairway), 2 (a hallway), 8 (a large area marked

partly destroyed and inaccessible), and rooms 10 and 12 (potentially apartments in the

past)—there were only three rooms, 8, 10, and 12, that could potentially have once been

apartments; rooms 1 and 2 were a stairway and a hallway.

Together, these three independent sources of information demonstrated that lead-

based paint was present in the building before and after Ms. Oglesby lived there and

supported Dr. Caplan’s conclusion that Ms. Oglesby was likely exposed to lead-based paint

at the property during her tenancy in the building. The testing revealing the presence of

lead in the building before and after Ms. Oglesby’s residency is particularly persuasive

concerning the adequacy of the factual basis for Dr. Caplan’s opinion as to source

causation. There is a lack of any evidence that the building underwent a lead-based paint

abatement or gut rehabilitation after 1989, at some point before Ms. Oglesby’s residence

in 1998. As the Appellate Court explained in Taylor v. Fishkind, 207 Md. App. 121, 144,

148, 51 A.3d 743, 757, 759 (2012), cert. denied, 431 Md. 221, 64 A.3d 497 (2013), when

reviewing a trial court’s grant of summary judgment, “[i]f the property contained lead-

based paint when it was originally constructed, then lack of evidence of a gut rehabilitation

prior to [the plaintiff] living there would support the conclusion that the property still

contained lead-based paint when [the plaintiff] lived there.” See also Rogers, 453 Md. at

272-73, 160 A.3d at 1219-20 (same). In addition, our case law confirms that the federal

government no longer permitted lead-based paint to be used after 1978, negating the

- 40 -
possibility that the property may have been entirely abated of lead-based paint at some

point after the 1989 Health Department inspection results and repainted with lead-based

paint after Ms. Oglesby’s departure in January or February 2002, thereby accounting for

the 2011 and 2012 test results showing the presence of lead in the building. See Levitas,

454 Md. at 248, 164 A.3d at 237.

In addition to independent tests showing the presence of lead in the building, Dr.

Caplan was aware, from sources other than Ms. Powell, that she and Ms. Oglesby were

required to move out of the building because it was in poor condition. Dr. Caplan had

reviewed the October 7, 2001 annual inspection report from Crowninshield for Apartment

202 and, in his report, specifically noted that the annual inspection report indicated that

multiple rooms in the apartment needed rehabilitation. At deposition, Dr. Caplan testified

that the October 2001 inspection report “said that rehab was needed in multiple rooms:

living room, dining room, bedrooms, bathroom[], kitchen and they were closing . . . that

apartment building. . . . [T]he whole apartment building was closed at the beginning of

2002 because of its poor condition.” The October 7, 2001 inspection report provided

independent support for Dr. Caplan’s conclusion that lead was accessible and Ms. Oglesby

was likely exposed to lead at the building.

Prior to issuing his report, Dr. Caplan also reviewed Ms. Powell’s deposition

testimony regarding chipping and peeling paint in the apartment and the rest of the

building. At deposition, Ms. Powell described the building as having peeling and chipping

paint everywhere in the building, throughout the hallways and stairwells and on the doors.

Ms. Powell testified that, although approximately a year after she moved into the apartment

- 41 -
management repainted the building’s common areas and the apartment doors, the paint

began peeling again. As to the apartment, Ms. Powell testified that the apartment was in

poor condition when she first moved in, and that within six or seven months, she noticed

peeling paint throughout the apartment, on the walls and windowsills, in the bathroom, and

in a closet. Despite her request that management paint locations inside the apartment, only

one window inside the apartment was repainted. This testimony, although it may have

been disputed, contributed to the factual basis for Dr. Caplan’s opinion that lead was

accessible to Ms. Oglesby during her residency at the building and that the building was a

source of her lead exposure.

Dr. Caplan also reviewed records documenting Ms. Oglesby’s BLL tests. At

deposition, Dr. Caplan explained that the dates of Ms. Oglesby’s documented BLL tests,

the circumstance that Ms. Oglesby’s BLL of 5.5 μg/dL was documented only two to three

months after she moved away from 2000 East North Avenue, that she did not have

significant visitations to other properties, and that she moved to a place not reported to

have peeling and chipping paint led to his conclusion that it was very likely that 2000 East

North Avenue was responsible for Ms. Oglesby’s BLL of 5.5 μg/dL.

At bottom, although there may have been a dispute of fact concerning whether Ms.

Oglesby was exposed to lead at the property or at other locations, there was more than an

adequate supply of data and information about the building to support Dr. Caplan’s opinion

that Ms. Oglesby was exposed to lead-based paint at 2000 East North Avenue. That Dr.

Caplan did not rule out a property that Ms. Oglesby visited while living at 2000 East North

Avenue or properties in which Ms. Oglesby lived before or after moving from the building

- 42 -
as sources of her exposure to lead would not render inadmissible his opinion regarding Ms.

Oglesby’s exposure to lead 2000 East North Avenue being a significant contributing factor

to her injuries. Cf. Levitas, 454 Md. at 250, 164 A.3d at 238 (“The substantial factor test

does not require experts to exclude other properties as possible contributing sources. . . . It

would be illogical for us to require an expert to narrow the plaintiff’s lead exposure down

to a single source when the substantial factor test, by its very definition, permits more than

one cause of injury.” (Citation omitted)); id. at 250, 164 A.3d at 238 (It is “not the rule”

“that an expert must exclude other properties before he can testify that the plaintiff was

exposed to lead at the subject property.”). With respect to source causation, “[w]e have

only required that an expert be able to adequately explain how he determined that a

property was a source of the plaintiff’s lead exposure so that the trier of fact can evaluate

his reasoning.” Id. at 251, 164 A.3d at 238-39 (citation omitted).

In fact, we agree with Ms. Oglesby that this case is similar to Levitas, id. at 250-51,

164 A.3d at 238-39, in which we held that a trial court abused its discretion in excluding

an expert’s opinion that the defendant’s property was likely a source of the plaintiff’s

exposure to lead-based paint. In Levitas, id. at 248-49, 164 A.3d at 237, the expert took

into account the circumstances that the plaintiff’s BLLs “were first found to be elevated

while he was living at [the building], when he had not yet lived anywhere else[,]” and that

he “regularly stayed at [the building] during the day while his mother was at work, both

when he lived there and when he lived at” a subsequent residence. (Emphasis omitted).

The expert also considered that: an Arc Environmental report found that 31 interior and 5

exterior locations tested positive for lead; lead-based paint was federally banned in 1978,

- 43 -
making it unlikely that the building had been painted with lead-based paint since the

plaintiff lived in the building in the 1990s; Maryland Department of Housing and

Community Development records described the poor condition of the property; a Maryland

Department of the Environment certification indicated that the building was not lead free;

and the plaintiff’s family members testified that the building was in a deteriorated condition

while the plaintiff lived there and the plaintiff touched peeling paint at the property. See

id. at 248-49, 164 A.3d at 237. In Levitas, id. at 250-51, 164 A.3d at 238-39, we concluded

that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the expert’s testimony on causation

because, in the trial court’s view, the expert had little information as to other sources of

lead exposure. We explained that, in so ruling, the trial court mistakenly “relied on a

purported rule of law that an expert must exclude other properties before he can testify that

the plaintiff was exposed to lead at the subject property.” Id. at 250, 164 A.3d at 238.26

Ms. Oglesby also sought to use Dr. Caplan’s testimony to assist with establishing

26
By contrast, in another case, Ross, 430 Md. at 663, 63 A.3d at 10, we held that a
trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that an expert lacked an adequate
factual basis to opine that the defendant’s building was “the source” of the plaintiff’s
exposure to lead-based paint. We concluded that the expert “did not explain adequately
how she reached the conclusion that the [subject property] was ‘the source’ of the lead
exposure that resulted in” the plaintiff’s elevated BLLs. Id. at 664, 63 A.3d at 10. We
explained that, “[g]iven the uncontroverted evidence that there were various other sources
of lead exposure in [the plaintiff]’s environment, including her prior residence, and that
she came to the [subject property] with already elevated [BLLs], there were likely multiple
causes of her elevated [BLLs].” Id. at 664, 63 A.3d at 10. We determined that “[t]he real
question for the fact-finder [wa]s how much exposure to lead at the [subject property]
contributed to [the plaintiff’s BLLs] over the pertinent time period[.]” Id. at 664, 63 A.3d
at 10 (emphasis omitted). We concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
determining that the expert’s opinion would not assist the fact-finder in answering that
question. See id. at 664-65, 63 A.3d at 10.

- 44 -
the second link, i.e., the link between her exposure to lead at the property and her BLLs.

The information that Dr. Caplan relied on concerning the presence of lead-based paint in

the building before and after Ms. Oglesby’s residency, and the deteriorated condition of

the building and the apartment at the time that Ms. Oglesby lived there, giving Ms. Oglesby

access to lead-based paint during the time she lived in the building, was sufficient to

support the opinion that Ms. Oglesby was likely exposed to lead at 2000 East North

Avenue. That information, coupled with Ms. Oglesby’s documented BLLs—specifically,

that she had a BLL of 2 µg/dL in April 1999, only a few months after she moved into the

building, and that she had a BLL of 5.5 µg/dL in March 2002, just two to three months

after she moved out of the building—as well as information that Ms. Oglesby did not have

significant visitations to other properties during this time and that the property Ms. Oglesby

moved into did not have chipping and peeling paint, although disputed by the parties,

provided a sufficient factual basis for Dr. Caplan to render an opinion concerning the

second causal link, the link between specific exposure to lead at the property and Ms.

Oglesby’s BLLs.

Clearly, issues concerning the frequency of Ms. Oglesby’s visits to the Lafyette

property on weekends and whether the Lafayette property and other properties that Ms.

Oglesby lived in before or after residing at 2000 East North Avenue contained lead-based

paint involve issues of disputed facts. The credibility of Ms. Powell’s testimony regarding

the frequency and duration of Ms. Oglesby’s weekend visits and the condition of other

properties is a matter for the trier of fact to determine, not the circuit court in ruling on the

motion to preclude. See Frankel, 480 Md. at 700-01, 281 A.3d at 703. In other words,

- 45 -
subject to the premise that the jury would be made aware of the existence of any genuinely

disputed facts, the information that Dr. Caplan relied on from Ms. Powell’s testimony

provided a sufficient factual basis for his opinion linking Ms. Oglesby’s specific exposure

to lead at the property to her documented BLL of 5.5 µg/dL in March 2002. See id. at 700-

01, 281 A.3d at 703.

Medical Causation

Setting aside the issue of IQ loss, Dr. Caplan also had a sufficient factual basis to

offer an opinion as to the third causal link—the link between Ms. Oglesby’s BLLs and her

other alleged injuries—when concluding that Ms. Oglesby’s likely exposure to lead at 2000

East North Avenue was a significant contributing factor to her cognitive impairments. Dr.

Caplan pointed out in his report that, according to the United States Environmental

Protection Agency, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Maryland Department of the

Environment, and the World Health Organization, lead is a causal or likely causal factor

for the type of impairments Ms. Oglesby suffered. In this case, there is no challenge to the

principle that the types of impairments and limitations documented by Dr. Hawkins-Heitt

and Mr. Lieberman, which are described in Dr. Caplan’s report, can be caused by exposure

to lead.

In the motion to preclude, Respondents took issue with the factual basis for Dr.

Caplan’s opinions as to causation of Ms. Oglesby’s alleged injuries, alleging that Dr.

Caplan lacked a sufficient factual basis for his testimony because he relied on a “selective

review of the evidence to support his opinion that the Property was the source of [Ms.

Oglesby]’s childhood lead exposure, and that childhood lead exposure caused her injuries.”

- 46 -
Similarly, before this Court, Respondents advance the claim that “Dr. Caplan lacked a

sufficient factual basis to opine that [Ms.] Oglesby suffered injuries as a result of lead

exposure at the Property[,]” due to the “limited evidence that Dr. Caplan received from

[Ms. Oglesby’s] counsel[.]” (Bolding omitted). In other words, as an extension of the

argument that Dr. Caplan lacked an adequate supply of data for his opinion as to source

causation, Respondents allege that Dr. Caplan also lacked an adequate supply of data for

the opinion that Ms. Oglesby’s exposure to lead at 2000 East North Avenue was a

significant contributing factor to her alleged injuries. We have already assessed this

contention and dispensed with it; the record reflects that Dr. Caplan had more than an

adequate supply of data for the opinion that Ms. Oglesby was exposed to lead-based paint

at the property.

That an expert have both an adequate supply of data and use reliable methodology

are well-recognized aspects of having a sufficient factual basis for an opinion under

Maryland Rule 5-702(3). See Sugarman, 460 Md. at 415, 190 A.3d at 354. In the

“Introduction” section of the motion to preclude, Respondents asserted that “Dr. Caplan’s

medical opinions, and any opinion testimony based on them, should be precluded under

Maryland Rule 5-702” and the Frye-Reed standard “because they lack a sufficient factual

basis and are not the product of a reliable methodology.”27 On brief in this Court,

27
In a section of the motion titled “Legal Standard,” along with other authority,
Respondents cited general case law indicating that both an adequate supply of data and
reliable methodology are necessary for the admission of expert opinion and that opinions
based on conjecture and speculation are not admissible. And, Respondents quoted the
well-established principle that “an expert opinion must provide a sound reasoning process

- 47 -
Respondents state that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion to find that “Dr.

Caplan did not use a reliable methodology to form his opinions regarding Oglesby’s alleged

injuries,” and state that the circuit court excluded Dr. Caplan’s opinions as “inherently

unreliable.”

To be sure, the record reflects that, at one point during the motions hearing while

ruling, the circuit court stated that “there are issues, if you will, with the facts and the

information that was gathered, and how it was gathered, and who he spoke to, and who he

didn’t speak to[,]” and that “the basis of the Court’s ruling is not only when you combine

those issues with the issue of the use of the methodology, the Court believes that together

that makes his testimony and opinion inherently unreliable.” This was part of the circuit

court’s response to Ms. Oglesby’s counsel’s request for clarification as to whether its ruling

that Dr. Caplan had used “incorrect” information applied to Ms. Oglesby’s case or

Johnson’s. With these remarks, the circuit court referred mainly to what it described as

issues with the facts, which the court believed in combination with “the issue of the use of

the methodology” rendered Dr. Caplan’s testimony unreliable. The circuit court made no

finding whatsoever with respect to “the issue of the use of the methodology”28 and provided

no substantive basis for ruling that Dr. Caplan’s testimony was inherently unreliable. This

for its conclusion from the factual data” and the explanation for the opinion must not be
“conclusory.” (Citation omitted).
28
Earlier, in its initial ruling, the circuit court’s only specific remarks concerning
methodology referred to Dr. Caplan not using all available BLLs in formulating his IQ loss
opinion and that he offered no support for the “calculations” he used.

- 48 -
was far from a finding by the circuit court that Dr. Caplan’s opinion on medical causation

as to Ms. Oglesby’s other alleged injuries was the product of unreliable methodology.

On brief in this Court, Respondents assert that Dr. Caplan’s opinion that Ms.

Oglesby suffered “neurocognitive injuries” was inadmissible because he did not examine

or administer tests to Ms. Oglesby, meet with her, or speak with her family, medical

providers, or teachers. To the extent Respondents contend that Dr. Caplan’s opinions and

testimony regarding Ms. Oglesby’s injuries are inadmissible because he relied on Dr.

Hawkins-Heitt’s report and did not personally examine Ms. Oglesby, this goes to the

weight to be given to Dr. Caplan’s opinion, rather than its admissibility. In Levitas, id. at

251, 164 A.3d at 239, we rejected the defendant’s contention that an expert’s opinion

lacked a sufficient factual basis because the expert did not conduct his own examination of

the plaintiff and instead relied on another expert’s report, scientific research, school

records, discovery materials, and deposition testimony. Our case law demonstrates that an

expert’s factual basis may arise from a number of sources, including reports prepared by

other doctors. See id. at 254, 164 A.3d at 240.

When a challenge to the admissibility of expert testimony is raised, “[t]he burden

rests with the proponent of the expert testimony to demonstrate that the[] requirements [of

Maryland Rule 5-702] have been met.” Rochkind, 454 Md. at 286, 164 A.3d at 259

(citation omitted). In this case, we are satisfied that, with respect to the data and

methodology used by Dr. Caplan for his opinion as to Ms. Oglesby’s alleged injuries (other

than IQ loss), Ms. Oglesby has done so. The process that Dr. Caplan used in reaching his

opinion is similar to that of medical experts who have been permitted in other cases to

- 49 -
render an opinion that a plaintiff’s exposure to lead was a significant contributing factor to

impairments like those attributed to Ms. Oglesby. See, e.g., Levitas, 454 Md. at 251-55,

164 A.3d at 239-41. Dr. Caplan evaluated information such as Ms. Oglesby’s time of

residency at the property, independent reports concerning the presence of lead and the

condition of property, Ms. Oglesby’s documented BLLs, and medical and vocational

evaluations describing Ms. Oglesby’s impairments, and, based on his knowledge and

experience, provided a reasonable explanation of how the factual data led to his

conclusions. See id. at 251-55, 164 A.3d at 239-41. Under the particular circumstances of

this case, given the large quantity of data that he had available and reviewed and the nature

of the challenge to the admissibility of his testimony, a remand for further proceedings as

to Dr. Caplan’s opinion that Ms. Oglesby’s exposure to lead at the property was a

substantial contributing factor to her injuries (other than IQ loss) is not warranted.

II. Dr. Caplan’s Opinion with Respect to IQ Loss

A. The Canfield and Lanphear Studies

Respondents contend that Dr. Caplan’s testimony concerning Ms. Oglesby’s IQ loss

is inadmissible because, in their view, Dr. Caplan’s explanation of his use of the Canfield

and Lanphear studies does not support a finding that his methodology was reliable. On

brief, Respondents state that “the issue is not the fact that Dr. Caplan relied on the Lanphear

and Canfield studies; the issue is how Dr. Caplan used those studies to calculate [Ms.]

Oglesby’s alleged IQ loss.” (Cleaned up). Based on their review of the studies,

Respondents raise the following complaints: (1) the studies contain language indicating

that causal inferences may not be made, and Dr. Caplan used linear calculations; (2) Dr.

- 50 -
Caplan used a peak BLL in a manner that is contradicted by information in the studies; and

(3) he miscalculated Ms. Oglesby’s average BLL.

To frame our discussion, we begin with some relevant information about the studies.

The Canfield study “measured blood lead concentrations in 172 children at 6, 12, 18, 24,

36, 48, and 60 months of age”—i.e., ½ a year old, 1 year old, and 1½, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years

old. Richard L. Canfield, Charles R. Henderson, Jr., Deborah A. Cory-Slechta, Christopher

Cox, Todd A. Jusko, and Bruce P. Lanphear, Intellectual Impairment in Children with

Blood Lead Concentrations below 10 μg per Deciliter, 348 New Eng. J. of Med. 1517 (Apr.

17, 2003), available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4046839/ [https://

perma.cc/JV55-68C3]. The study explained that “[t]he relation between IQ and blood lead

concentration was estimated with the use of linear and nonlinear mixed models, with

adjustments for maternal IQ, quality of the home environment, and other potential

confounders[,]” and that results demonstrated that “blood lead concentration was inversely

and significantly associated with IQ.” Id. The study stated that, “[w]hen estimated in a

nonlinear model with the full sample, IQ declined by 7.4 points as lifetime average blood

lead concentrations increased from 1 to 10 µg[/dL].” Id.29 The Canfield study explained

that “[p]revious research is consistent with the interpretation that the effects of lead on IQ

are proportionally greater at lower lead concentrations.” 348 New Eng. J. of Med. at 1522.

As to IQ at blood-lead concentrations below 10 µg/dL, the Canfield study related

29
The Canfield study also stated that, using the linear model, “the estimated IQ loss
was 4.6 points for each increase in the blood lead concentration of 10 µg per deciliter,” and
that “for children whose lead concentrations remained below 10 µg per deciliter, the
estimated loss in IQ was considerably greater.” 348 New Eng. J. of Med. at 1521.

- 51 -
that “linear models for each lead variable were estimated for the subgroup of children

whose peak lead concentration was below 10 µg per deciliter” and that, “[w]ithout

exception, the estimates were larger in this subgroup.” Id. at 1521. The Canfield study

stated that, using nonlinear mixed models, the “[s]emiparametric analysis indicated a

decline in IQ of 7.4 points for a lifetime average blood lead concentration of up to 10 µg

per deciliter[.]” Id.

Similarly, the Lanphear study starts by noting that “[t]here is emerging evidence

that lead-associated intellectual deficits occur at [BLLs less than] 10 µg/dL” and cites eight

studies for this point. Bruce P. Lanphear, Richard Hornung, Jane Khoury, Kimberly

Yolton, Peter Baghurst, David C. Bellinger, Richard L. Canfield, Kim N. Dietrich, Robert

Bornschein, Tom Greene, Stephen J. Rothenberg, Herbert L. Needleman, Lourdes

Schnaas, Gail Wasserman, Joseph Graziano, and Russell Roberts, Low-Level

Environmental Lead Exposure and Children’s Intellectual Function: An International

Pooled Analysis, 113 Env’t Health Persps. 894 (July 2005), available at https://www.ncbi.

nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257652/ [https://perma.cc/8LT6-NZZQ]. The study

explained that it contacted investigators of the studies and obtained “data sets and

collaboration” from seven of the eight. Id. The study described itself as a pooled analysis

that estimated “the quantitative relationship between children’s performance on IQ tests

and selected measures of blood lead concentration among children followed prospectively,

from infancy through 5–10 years of age in seven prospective cohort studies.” Id. “To

enhance comparability across studies, [the study] used the following blood sampling

- 52 -
intervals (based on children’s age): 6, 12 (or 15), 36, 48, and 60 months”—i.e., ½ a year

old, 1 year old (or 1¼ years old), and 3, 4, and 5 years old. Id. at 895.

As to results, the Lanphear study stated that, “[f]or the entire pooled data set,” there

was an “observed decline of 6.2 IQ points [] for an increase in [BLLs] from < 1 to 10

μg/dL[.]” Id. at 898. The Lanphear study stated that this “was comparable with the 7.4 IQ

decrement for an increase in lifetime mean [BLLs] from < 1 to 10 μg/dL observed in the”

Canfield study. Id. The Lanphear study stated that, consistent with other studies, “the

lead-associated IQ deficits observed in this pooled analysis were significantly greater at

lower blood lead concentrations.” Id. The Lanphear study also determined that, by using

the larger sample size of the pooled analysis, it was able “to show that the lead-associated

intellectual decrement was significantly greater for children with a maximal blood lead of

< 7.5 μg/dL than for those who had a maximal blood lead of ≥ 7.5 μg/dL.” Id.

B. Relevant Case Law

This Court has held that “a properly qualified expert witness can rely on the

Lanphear Study methodology, as well as other accepted scientific research, as a factual

basis for an opinion that a plaintiff’s elevated BLLs caused the loss of a specific number

of IQ points.” Sugarman, 460 Md. at 434, 190 A.3d at 366 (citing Levitas, 454 Md. at 254-

55, 164 A.3d at 241; Roy v. Dackman, 445 Md. 23, 51 n.16, 124 A.3d 169, 186 n.16 (2015);

Rochkind v. Stevenson, 229 Md. App. 422, 469-70, 145 A.3d 570, 598 (2016), rev’d, 454

Md. 277, 164 A.3d 254 (2017)).

In Roy, 445 Md. at 33, 124 A.3d at 175, we considered whether an expert witness

could render an opinion that lead-based paint at a property caused the plaintiff’s medical

- 53 -
injuries, which included “a loss of IQ points, impaired attention, problems with memory,

and problems with coordination.” (Cleaned up). The expert relied on the pooled Lanphear

study to form an opinion about the plaintiff’s IQ loss due to lead exposure. See id. at 51 &

n.16, 124 A.3d at 186 & n.16. The defendants took issue with the expert’s use of the study,

contending that there “have been peer-reviewed studies published in highly respected

journals not only directly contradicting the studies on which [the expert] relie[d], but also

calling into question the application of the studies to any one individual without real-life

evidence of actual IQ point loss.” Id. at 51 n.16, 124 A.3d at 186 n.16.

We concluded that the expert’s reliance on the Lanphear study did “not invalidate

the entire basis of his opinion, even if the Lanphear study [was] contrary to the results of

other studies as alleged by [the defendants]. Such is the grist for cross-examination and

dueling experts and for resolution by the relative weight assigned by the fact-finder.” Id.

at 51 n.16, 124 A.3d at 186 n.16. We determined that the record demonstrated that the

expert possessed “a sufficient background from which to provide an opinion as to the

injuries claimed to have been suffered by [the plaintiff] as the result of alleged exposure to

lead.” Id. at 52, 124 A.3d at 186. But, whether a jury would find the expert’s testimony

persuasive would “depend, in large measure, on the effectiveness of [the defendants’]

cross-examination and a comparison/weighing by the jury against [the defendants’]

competing witness(es)’ testimony.” Id. at 52, 124 A.3d at 186.

In Rochkind, 229 Md. App. at 465, 145 A.3d at 596, where an expert’s opinion

quantified the plaintiff’s IQ loss, the Appellate Court addressed whether the expert’s

calculations were reliable under Frye-Reed and whether the expert had an adequate factual

- 54 -
basis under Maryland Rule 5-702(3).30 The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court

did not abuse its discretion in finding the expert’s methodology reliable where the expert

extrapolated from the Lanphear study to estimate a specific IQ loss in the plaintiff. See

Rochkind, 229 Md. App. at 469, 145 A.3d at 598. In Rochkind, id. at 466-67, 145 A.3d at

596-97, relying on the Lanphear study, the expert testified that the plaintiff lost between 5

and 6 IQ points as a result of exposure to lead. The expert testified that, based on the

Lanphear study, she used the plaintiff’s peak BLL of 14 μg/dL and “calculated an IQ loss

of 3.9 points based upon a level of between zero and ten, 0-10 μg/dL[,] and an additional

loss of 1.9 points for the level between 10 and 20 μg/dL, for a total of 5.8.” Id. at 466-67,

145 A.3d at 597. The expert explained that her opinion would not have changed if she had

used the plaintiff’s average BLL of 11.5 μg/dL. See id. at 466-67, 145 A.3d at 597.

The Appellate Court determined that, because, as the defendant acknowledged,

“there is a scientific consensus that lead poisoning causes IQ loss, the only issue [was]

whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing [the expert] to opine that [the

plaintiff] sustained a specific IQ loss of between five and six points.” Id. at 469, 145 A.3d

at 598. The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

accepting as “sound” the expert’s methodology of “extrapolating from epidemiological

studies quantifying IQ loss resulting from lead exposure in the general population to

30
This Court reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment on a different ground,
concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the expert to testify that
lead exposure can cause attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”) generally and
that lead caused the plaintiff’s ADHD specifically. See Rochkind, 454 Md. at 295-96, 164
A.3d at 265. No issue concerning the expert’s opinion as to IQ loss was before this Court.
See id. at 284-85, 164 A.3d at 258.

- 55 -
estimate the range of IQ loss in an individual.” Id. at 469, 145 A.3d at 598. The Appellate

Court stated that the expert “fully explained the basis for her calculation on the IQ loss”

during “vigorous cross-examination[.]” Id. at 470, 145 A.3d at 598. Accordingly, the

Appellate Court concluded that the expert’s opinion as to IQ loss was supported by an

adequate factual basis. See Rochkind, 229 Md. App. at 470, 145 A.3d at 599.

In Levitas, 454 Md. at 254-55, 164 A.3d at 241, relying on Roy, we concluded that

an expert could use the Lanphear study to calculate the plaintiff’s individual IQ loss. In

Levitas, 454 Md. at 240, 164 A.3d at 232, at deposition, the plaintiff’s expert witness

testified that, as a result of the plaintiff’s exposure to lead, the plaintiff lost 7.4 to 9.4 IQ

points. In calculating the plaintiff’s IQ loss, the expert relied on the Lanphear study, and

averaged the plaintiff’s BLLs and “determined his loss in IQ points based on the study’s

results.” Id. at 240-41, 164 A.3d at 232. The trial court excluded the expert’s opinion,

ruling that the expert lacked a sufficient factual basis under Maryland Rule 5-702(3). See

id. at 241, 164 A.3d at 233.

Before this Court, the defendant contended that the expert could not calculate the

plaintiff’s “IQ loss using the Lanphear study because it is population-based, and therefore

cannot be used to calculate an individual’s IQ loss.” Id. at 254, 164 A.3d at 240. Relying

on Roy, 445 Md. at 51-52 & n.16, 124 A.3d at 185-86 & n.16, we rejected the defendant’s

contention, stating that, despite other reputable studies contradicting the Lanphear study’s

results and cautioning against using it to calculate individual IQ loss, relying on the

Lanphear study did not invalidate the basis of an expert’s opinion. See Levitas, 454 Md.

- 56 -
at 254-55, 164 A.3d at 241.31

In Sugarman, 460 Md. at 432-34, 190 A.3d at 365-66, after reviewing Roy,

Rochkind, and Levitas, we stated unequivocally: “Levitas and Roy demonstrate that a

properly qualified expert witness can rely on the Lanphear Study methodology, as well as

other accepted scientific research, as a factual basis for an opinion that a plaintiff’s elevated

BLLs caused the loss of a specific number of IQ points.” (Citations omitted). We

explained that “[l]egitimate scientific disputes go not to the admissibility of testimony, but

to the weight of the evidence.” Sugarman, 460 Md. at 434, 190 A.3d at 366. In Sugarman,

id. at 403, 190 A.3d at 348, the plaintiff offered Robert Kraft, Ph.D., as an expert in the

fields of psychology and neuropsychology, who conducted a neuropsychological

examination of the plaintiff consisting of an interview and several tests to assess aspects of

intelligence. Dr. Kraft testified that the plaintiff had a full-scale IQ of 94, which placed

him in the average range, but noted that test scores “indicated that [the plaintiff] had some

form of brain impairment.” Id. at 403, 190 A.3d at 348.

The plaintiff offered Jacalyn Blackwell-White, M.D., as an expert in the fields of

pediatrics and childhood lead poisoning. See id. at 405, 190 A.3d at 349. Dr. Blackwell-

31
In Levitas, 454 Md. at 240 & n.6, 164 A.3d at 232 & n.6, following our first
reference to the Lanphear study, we provided the citation for the Canfield study instead—
“Richard L. Canfield et al., Intellectual Impairment in Children with Blood Lead
Concentrations Below 10 µg per Deciliter, 348 New Eng. J. of Med. 1517 (2003).” It is
unclear whether we inadvertently cited the Canfield study or whether we meant to refer to
the Canfield study instead of the Lanphear study. In any event, in Levitas, 454 Md. at 254-
55, 164 A.3d at 241, we summarized our discussion of the Lanphear study in Roy, 445 Md.
at 51-52 & n.16, 124 A.3d at 185-86 & n.16, a case in which we provided the citation to
the Lanphear study.

- 57 -
White reviewed the plaintiff’s medical records, Dr. Kraft’s report, and other records, and

determined that the plaintiff incurred a brain impairment due to lead toxicity, that the

impairment included a loss of cognitive function, and that the plaintiff lost 4 IQ points due

to lead toxicity. See id. at 405, 190 A.3d at 349. Among other studies, Dr. Blackwell-

White relied on the Lanphear study. See id. at 405-06, 190 A.3d at 349.

As to Dr. Blackwell-White’s opinion about the plaintiff’s IQ loss, we stated:

Like the experts in Levitas and Roy, Dr. Blackwell-White relied on
[the plaintiff]’s documented BLLs, the results of his neuropsychological
evaluation, and the Lanphear Study, to estimate a specific IQ point loss. She
did not look only to his elevated BLLs, assume he had a cognitive defect, and
then extrapolate a point loss based on the Lanphear methodology. Rather,
Dr. Blackwell-White relied on evidence that [the plaintiff]—individually—
had already manifested cognitive defects. This gave her enough reason to
use her knowledge and expertise to extrapolate a loss of IQ points according
to the methodology outlined in the Lanphear Study. [The defendant]
presented contradictory experts and extensively cross-examined [the
plaintiff]’s experts about their conclusions. That is what we contemplated in
Levitas and Roy.

Sugarman, 460 Md. at 436-37, 190 A.3d at 367-68 (citations omitted). We concluded that

“Dr. Blackwell-White’s testimony provided sufficient evidence for the jury to draw the

inference that, more likely than not, [the plaintiff]’s elevated BLLs caused a measurable

loss of IQ points” and that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motions and

allowed the question to go to the jury. Id. at 437, 190 A.3d at 368.

The bottom line is that these cases demonstrate that experts have been permitted to

rely on the Lanphear study and extrapolate from its findings and render an opinion that an

individual suffered a specified loss of IQ points as a result of exposure to lead.

- 58 -
C. Application of Principles Above to This Case

In this case, as with the experts in Sugarman, Levitas, and Roy, Dr. Caplan relied

on information about Ms. Oglesby, such as documented BLLs, the results of the

neuropsychological evaluation performed by Dr. Hawkins-Heitt showing that Ms. Oglesby

had a full-scale IQ score of 80 and cognitive impairments, and the Lanphear study (as well

as the Canfield study), to estimate specific IQ point losses. Cf. Sugarman, 460 Md. at 436,

190 A.3d at 367. Although this Court and the Appellate Court have explicitly

acknowledged that an expert may rely on and extrapolate from the Lanphear study to render

an opinion as to an individual’s IQ loss, our case law has not yet assessed an expert’s use

of the Canfield study in the same way. We note, though, that the Canfield study is one of

the studies in the pooled analysis used in the Lanphear study. See 113 Env’t Health Persps.

at 894. And, the Lanphear study explained that its conclusion that there was a decline of

6.2 IQ points for an increase in BLLs from less than 1 to 10 μg/dL was comparable to the

7.4 IQ decrement observed in the Canfield study. See id. at 898.

At the outset of our discussion, we observe that Respondents raised in the motion to

preclude, and on brief in this Court, arguments that appear to go to the reliability of Dr.

Caplan’s methodology as well as arguments that are better suited for cross-examination,

rather than the exclusion of Dr. Caplan’s testimony. As an example of the latter, at least

with respect to the Lanphear study, Respondents identify a statement in the study that “[t]he

observational design of this study limits our ability to draw causal inferences” and argue

that this language renders Dr. Caplan’s opinion concerning Ms. Oglesby’s IQ loss

inadmissible. That notwithstanding, as the case law discussed above demonstrates, experts

- 59 -
have been permitted to rely on the Lanphear study to offer an opinion that exposure to lead

caused IQ loss to a plaintiff. See Sugarman, 460 Md. at 436-37, 190 A.3d at 367-68; Roy,

445 Md. at 51 n.16, 124 A.3d at 186 n.16. There is no dispute the Lanphear study shows

that exposure to lead-based paint can cause IQ loss. See, e.g., Sugarman, 460 Md. at 430,

190 A.3d at 363. Our case law contradicts the notion that expert testimony as to specific

causation in reliance on the Lanphear study is precluded based solely on the language in

the study that Respondents point out and suggests that the significance of the language the

Respondents point out is a matter for cross-examination. See Sugarman, 460 Md. at 434,

190 A.3d at 366; Roy, 445 Md. at 51 n.16, 124 A.3d at 186 n.16.

In another example of an argument better su

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9411478. Public record. Not legal advice.