In Roy v. Dackman, No. 6, Sept. Term, 2015 (Md. Oct. 16, 2015), the Maryland Court of Appeals addressed the proper scope of expert testimony in a lead poisoning case. Plaintiff proffered a pediatrician who had never treated a child with lead paint poisoning as an expert on both the medical causation issues and issues pertaining to the source of lead. Plaintiff also had an industrial hygienist as a second expert on the source of the lead. The trial court excluded the pediatrician both as to medical causation, given his lack of experience treating lead poisoning cases, and as to the source of the lead. As a result, the court granted summary judgment for the defendant. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, but the Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the plaintiff’s pediatrician was a medical expert qualified to testify based upon his review of the medical literature concerning lead poisoning as to medical causation; that he had not treated lead poisoning cases went to the weight of his testimony. The court affirmed, though, that the pediatrician was not qualified to give an expert opinion on the source of the lead, an issue outside the scope of medical expertise. Because plaintiff had the industrial hygienist to testify on this point, however, the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment against plaintiff and remanded for further proceedings.