Giant Food, Inc. v. Booker
831 A.2d 481, 152 Md.App. 166, 2003 Md. App. LEXIS 104 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An expert witness's opinion on medical causation has no probative value and is legally insufficient to support a jury verdict unless it is based on a sufficient factual basis and derived from reliable principles and methods, rather than mere speculation or conjecture.
Facts:
- On December 15, 1998, Tivey L. Booker, a janitor and member of the emergency response team at a Giant Food warehouse, was exposed to Freon gas while rescuing two unconscious coworkers from a refrigerant leak.
- Booker entered the foggy room twice for approximately thirty seconds each time, after which he experienced dizziness and uneasy breathing and was hospitalized overnight.
- In the weeks following the incident, Booker made several more visits to the emergency room with symptoms of headaches, dizziness, and shortness of breath.
- An OSHA investigation the day after the incident concluded that Freon was the only chemical agent involved.
- In January 1999, about one month after the exposure, Booker was examined at Johns Hopkins and denied having any chest pains or shortness of breath; the examining physician concluded the exposure was unlikely to cause chronic problems.
- In February 1999, Booker was exposed to a different chemical substance at work (a powder-based absorbent for a hydraulic leak) which caused him to cough.
- In March 2000, approximately fourteen months after the Freon exposure, a pulmonary specialist, Dr. Barry Redjaee, diagnosed Booker with adult on-set asthma.
Procedural Posture:
- Tivey L. Booker filed a claim for permanent partial disability with the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission.
- The Commission denied the claim, finding no causal connection between Booker's asthma and the workplace Freon exposure.
- Booker sought de novo judicial review of the Commission's decision in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, a trial court.
- At trial, a jury found in favor of Booker, determining that the exposure did cause his asthma and resulted in a permanent partial disability.
- Giant Food moved for judgment during the trial, and the court reserved its ruling.
- Following the verdict, Giant Food filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), which the trial court denied.
- Giant Food, Inc., and its insurer (appellants) appealed the denial of their motions to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, an intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an expert's medical opinion on causation provide legally sufficient evidence to submit a case to the jury when that opinion lacks an adequate factual basis and is not supported by any scientific or medical studies?
Opinions:
Majority - Sharer, J.
No. Expert medical testimony on causation is not legally sufficient evidence to submit a case to a jury if the opinion lacks an adequate factual basis and is not the product of reliable principles and methods. The court determined that Booker was required to present expert testimony to prove causation due to the fourteen-month delay between the Freon exposure and the asthma diagnosis, and because the cause-and-effect relationship is a complicated medical question beyond the common knowledge of laypersons. Dr. Redjaee's testimony failed to meet the standards of Maryland Rule 5-702 because it lacked a sufficient factual basis. He admitted he was unclear about the chemical agent involved, could not find any medical literature linking Freon exposure to asthma, and even stated that if the agent was purely Freon, he would have to conclude it does not cause asthma. His opinion was based on the mere fact that Booker was exposed to something and went to the emergency room, which amounts to speculation and conjecture. Therefore, the opinion had no probative force, and the trial court erred in denying Giant Food's motion for judgment.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the trial court's gatekeeping function in evaluating the admissibility and sufficiency of expert testimony under Maryland Rule 5-702. It clarifies that an expert's qualifications alone are insufficient; the substance of the opinion must be grounded in a solid factual foundation and reliable methodology. The ruling makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to prove causation for complex or latent injuries based on speculative expert opinions, especially those concerning novel theories of causation that are not supported by scientific literature. This precedent requires expert opinions to move beyond 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' reasoning (after this, therefore because of this) and be based on demonstrable scientific principles.
