Rochkind v. Stevenson

Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2020 · Evidence

471 Md. 1 (2020)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceExpert witness testimonyMaryland Rule 5-702DaubertFrye-Reedexpert testimonyreliabilitysufficient factual basis

Facts

Stevenson was exposed to lead while living at Fairview as an infant, and blood tests during that period showed elevated blood lead levels. In earlier proceedings, this Court had held that Dr. Hall-Carrington lacked a sufficient factual basis to testify that lead exposure generally or specifically caused Stevenson’s ADHD because her opinion rested on the EPA-ISA without adequate support. On remand, the circuit court ruled that Dr. Hall-Carrington could testify that lead exposure specifically caused Stevenson’s attentional deficits, hyperactivity, and impulsivity so long as she did not use the term ADHD. The court did so without holding a Rule 5-702 hearing focused on her specific-causation methodology.

Issue

Should Maryland abandon Frye-Reed and adopt the Daubert standard for admissibility of expert testimony under Maryland Rule 5-702? If so, did the circuit court err by admitting Dr. Hall-Carrington’s specific-causation testimony without conducting a proper Rule 5-702 reliability inquiry?

Rule

Maryland adopts the Daubert reliability framework for interpreting Maryland Rule 5-702 and overrules Frye and Reed. In evaluating expert testimony, courts should consider, but are not limited to, whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested, has been subjected to peer review and publication, has a known or potential error rate, is governed by standards and controls, is generally accepted, whether the opinion arose naturally from independent research, whether the expert unjustifiably extrapolated from accepted premises, whether the expert accounted for obvious alternative explanations, whether the expert used the same care as in ordinary professional work, and whether the field reliably reaches results of the kind offered.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a Maryland toxic-exposure case in Annapolis, Nora Bennett offers an industrial hygienist who relies on a sampling method long used in the field and widely accepted by other hygienists. But the expert leaps from those accepted measurements to an opinion that a brief warehouse exposure caused Nora’s chronic neurological symptoms, without identifying testing, error rates, or why the data support that conclusion.

How should the trial court rule on admissibility under Maryland Rule 5-702?

Explanation. Maryland adopted Daubert as the single governing framework for Rule 5-702. General acceptance remains relevant, but it is only one factor, not the sole test. The court must assess reliability more broadly, including whether the expert has unjustifiably extrapolated and whether there is too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion.