BALTIMORE LEAD POISONING DISCOVERY : Defense Update.

www.charlesjeromeware.com.  "Here to make a difference."
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is recognized locally and nationally for his pre-eminence and success
as a landlord lead paint poisoning defense lawyer For an initial courtesy consultation, he can be reached at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016  and  (410) 720-6129, in Maryland.


LEAD  POISONING  CASES  EVOLVING  SCOPE OF DISCOVERY:


Locally and nationwide, Courts have begun to recognize that lead exposure does not
always equal injury. Traditionally, in Baltimore at least, numerous judges and commentators have suggested that in certain circumstances lead poisoning cases are " indefensible". This new trend  helps the defendant landlord.


The current sense is that, when supported by scientific studies and articles to show a link, expert testimony can be utilized to show that the plaintiff's disorder can be attributed to causes other than lead exposure.


Because lead poisoning claims are usually brought by a parent, in their representative capacity only, on behalf of an infant plaintiff, plaintiff's counsel will frequently take the position that defendants are only entitled to discovery from the infant plaintiff.  Since the plaintiff's mother (usually)  is not a party in her own right, and she has not put her own medical condition into issue, her medical history remains privileged.


however, because a child's in utero development is inextricably intertwined with the health of his mother, courts do permit discovery of prenatal health records.  Nevertheless, plaintiff's' counsel routinely attempt to foreclose inquiry into the health and academic performance of siblings and parents.


Considering that social, behavioral, cognitive, and intelligence deficiencies may be attributed to heredity, prenatal conditions, and psychological factors, courts should permit discovery from non-party family members.


The scope of discovery in lead paint cases is an evolving area of the law, and the issue of non-party discovery (such as parents of the plaintiff)  has arisen frequently  in this context.  Some courts, citing the broad discovery provision contained, for example, in Rule 26(b)(1), have permitted discovery of non-party information because they found it relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Others, however, have rejected discovery of non-party siblings and parents as beyond the scope of Rule 26.


[ also see, www.uslaw.org]