LEAD PAINT POISONING DEFENSE (LPPD): Maryland Lead Defense Attorney

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com.  "Here to make a difference."
Ross v. Hous. Auth. of Baltimore City, 430 Md. 648, 63 A.3d 1 (2013).
The Maryland Court of Appeals has held that, while Plaintiff’s medical expert was properly excluded as an expert as to the “source” of the Plaintiff’s lead exposure, the exclusion of that testimony did not preclude the Plaintiff from establishing the causal link by circumstantial evidence at trial.

To prove that the Defendant’s subject premises was a “substantial factor,” and therefore caused the Plaintiff’s injuries resulting from lead exposure, the premises (1) must have been a source of the Plaintiff’s exposure to lead, (2) the exposure must have contributed to the elevated blood lead levels, and (3) the associated increase in blood lead levels must have been substantial enough to contribute to the Plaintiff’s injuries.

The Court held that an expert is not necessary in order to establish prong (1), but that expert testimony might be essential in proving prongs (2) and (3).

The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the circuit court on the basis that the fact-finder could infer from the evidence that lead exposure at the subject premises was a substantial contributing factor to the Plaintiff’s blood lead levels without the testimony of a causation expert.
[Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is a nationally-respected, Maryland-based, lead paint poisoning defense attorney.  For questions or an initial courtesy consultation, contact Attorney Ware at (410) 720-6129 or (410) 730-5016; or email him at charlesjeromeware@msn.com]