BALTIMORE LEAD PAINT DEFENSE BOOT CAMP

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com.  "Here to make a difference."



Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys & Counselors, LLC, is a premier Maryland-based national landlord lead paint defense law firm.  For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.  We can help you.


Numerous judges, officials and commentators have suggested that in certain circumstances lead paint poisoning cases in Baltimore are "indefensible."  As lead-based paint poisoning defense attorneys, we respectfully disagree.

Lead Based Paint Disclosure

Baltimore City County Maryland Lead Based Paint Disclosure
Congress passed the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, also known as Title X, to protect families from exposure to lead from paint, dust, and soil. Section 1018 of this law directed HUD and EPA to require the disclosure of known information on lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards before the sale or lease of most housing built before 1978.

1. Toliver v. Waicker, 210 Md. App. 52, 62 A.3d 200 (2013), cert. denied, 432 Md. 213, 68 A.3d 287 (2013). Decision: Management company president, in that position alone, is not liable personally as "operator" under the housing code.


2. Taylor v. Fishkind, 207 Md. App. 121, 51 A.3d 743 (2012), cert. denied, 431 Md. 221, 64 A. 3d 497 (2013). Decision :" Substantial Factor" causation expert lacks sufficient factual basis to opine within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the residential unit was a substantial contributing source of the plaintiff's lead exposure.


3.Hamilton v. Dackman, 213 Md. App. 589, 75 A.3d 327, petition for cert. filed, Petition Docket No. 450, Sept. Term, 2013 : Decision: In order to make a prima facie case of lead paint poisoning, a plaintiff must show that the subject property was probably 9i.e., more likely than not) a source of exposure.


4. Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 433 Md. 137, 70 A.3d 328 (2013). Decision :  A  Frye/Reed analysis of the admissibility of an expert's opinion based upon its general acceptance in the relevant scientific community is only necessary if that opinion involves a novel scientific method.


5. West v. Rochkind, 212 Md. App. 164, 66 A.3d 1145 (2013), cert. denied, 435 Md. 270, 77 A.3d 1086 (2013). Decision : A plaintiff may prove the presence of lead paint at a property by way of circumstantial evidence without XRF spectrometry or laboratory paint chip or dust testing.


6. Montgomery Mutual. Ins. Co. v. Chesson, 434 Md. 346, 75 A.3d 932 (2013). Decision: An expert's "novel" opinion as to causation due to toxic exposure must be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community before it can be deemed admissible.


7. City Homes, Inc. v. Hazelwood, 210 Md. App. 615, 63 A.3d 713 (2013), cert. denied, 432 Md. 468, 69 A.3d 476 (2013).  Decision: Expert's lack of qualifications and his insufficient factual basis
to offer an opinion, as well as his lack of knowledge of the source of the lead ingestion, ruled out his testimony at trial.


8. Ross v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, 430 Md. 648, 63 A.3d 1 (2013).  Decision: Though the doctor was properly excluded as an "expert" at trial 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.


9. Butler v. S & S Partnership, 435 Md. 635, 80 A.3d 298 (2013), Decision: A trial court may not, sua sponte, exclude an expert's opinions based on discovery violations found under Maryland Rule 2-432(b) without a party first moving for an order to compel discovery or filing a motion for discovery sanctions.


10. Hamilton v. Kirson;and Alston v. 2700 Virginia Avenue Assocs. 2014 Court of Appeals Cases.



     These two cases will be argued and considered on the issue of the admissibility of expert causation testimony and the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's use of circumstantial evidence to prove causation.