Maryland Adopts the Daubert Standard

In a 4-to-3 split decision on August 28, 2020, and after years of “jurisprudential drift,” the Maryland Court of Appeals adopted “Daubert as the governing standard by which trial courts admit or exclude expert testimony.” Stanley Rochkind v. Starlena Stevenson, 2020 Md. LEXIS 414 at *4.

This underlying lawsuit arose when the defendant, Starlena Stevenson (“Ms. Stevenson”), and her mother moved into a new residence (“Residence”) owned by Stanley Rochkind (“Mr. Rochkind”). Ms. Stevenson was ten months old when they moved in.  The Residence “contained chipping and flaking paint.” Id. at *5. After living in the Residence for a period of time, Ms. Stevenson’s blood lead level was measured at “13 to 14 micrograms per deciliter,” which only dropped to 11 micrograms per deciliter after Ms. Stevenson left the Residence for two months. Id.  Per the Court, Ms. Stevenson, now 29 years old, “faced numerous medical, psychological, and socioeconomic obstacles,” allegedly as a result of exposure to lead at the Residence. Id.

Ms. Stevenson originally filed suit against Mr. Rochkind in 2011. At that time, Ms. Stevenson retained Dr. Cecilia Hall-Carrington, M.D., who prepared a report “concluding to ‘a reasonable degree of medical probability’ that Ms. Stevenson was poisoned by lead at the Residence and that ‘her lead poisoning [was] a significant contributing factor’ to her neurological problems.” Id. at *6. Over the course of nine years and numerous trials, Mr. Rochkind repeatedly challenged the admission of Dr. Hall-Carrington’s testimony.

Ms. Stevenson argued that Dr. Hall-Carrington “provided reliable methodology consistent with Maryland tort law’s ‘substantial factor’ causation standard,” following the long-applied Frye-Reed standard for admitting experts. Mr. Rochkind, on the other hand, argued that “Dr. Hall-Carrington did not have a reliable methodology for attributing those problems to lead exposure as opposed to ADHD.” Id. at *14.

In retiring the Frye-Reed standard, the Court noted that “the [U.S.] Supreme Court disavowed the Frye standard for the more flexible Daubert approach” and that “a supermajority of our sister jurisdictions followed suit.” The Court recognized that “a significant change in the law [had] occurred, permitting [the Court] to depart from stare decisis and adopt the Daubert standard in this instance.” Id. at *38. Important in the Court’s decision was the consideration that adoption of Daubert would streamline the evaluation of scientific expert testimony under Rule 5-702.” Id. at *47.

This change in standard will require some adjustment by experts and attorneys, especially for those who operate primarily in the Maryland state courts.  The Daubert standard allows for a more robust assessment of reliability of the methods employed by the expert and the connection between the method and the experts’ conclusions.  For example, experts now may be expected to discuss whether they have adequately accounted for alternative explanations, and whether their opinions have been peer reviewed.  While this is a significant change in Maryland state law, it is worth noting that the federal courts, including those in Maryland, have been applying the Daubert standard for many years and the industry has been adjusting over that time.

For more information about this and other similar cases, please contact MMR attorneys Robert Tayloe Ross or Robert S. Reverski, Jr.