Oglesby v. Balt. Sch. Assocs.

• Docket Number: 26, Sept. Term, 2022
• Decision Date: 26 July 2023
• Citation: 484 Md. 296,298 A.3d 859
• Parties: Jamaiya OGLESBY v. BALTIMORE SCHOOL ASSOCIATES, et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

484 Md. 296

298 A.3d 859

Jamaiya OGLESBY

v.BALTIMORE SCHOOL ASSOCIATES, et al.

No. 26, Sept. Term, 2022

Supreme Court of Maryland. *

July 26, 2023

Argued by Cara L. O'Brien(Avalon S. Brandt, O'Brien Law, P.A., Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner

Argued by Timothy M. Hurley(Michael E. Blumenfeld, Taylor M. Bayat, and Scott J. Richman, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondents

Argued before: Fader, C.J., Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, Eaves, JJ.

Watts, J.

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,¹Crowninshield 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. 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 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 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 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.⁷Ms. 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

On December 18, 1998, when Ms. Oglesby was eight months old, she and Ms. Powell moved into 2000 East North Avenue, Apartment 202.⁹Respondents 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.¹⁰According 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.¹¹Ms. Powell testified that she did not see her children touch or put any peeling paint 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 bathroom ceiling.¹²Ms. 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.¹³Ms. Powell testified that the apartment building was being closed down and they were told to relocate.¹⁴It is undisputed that the building was not well maintained and that in early 2002, Respondents closed the building rather than make necessary repairs.¹⁵

...