Brief - Important information on this case.
Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc., No. 128 September Term, 2000 (Md. 08-16-2001) - Motion for Rehearing Denied.
|||IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
|||No. 128 September Term, 2000,, No. 129
|||August 16, 2001
KENNEDY KRIEGER INSTITUTE, INC.
MYRON HIGGINS, A MINOR, ETC., ET AL.
KENNEDY KRIEGER INSTITUTE, INC.
|||Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case numbers: 24-C-99-000925 and 24-C-95066067/CL
|||Eldridge Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia, Karwacki, Robert L. (retired,
specially assigned), JJ.
|||The opinion of the court was delivered by: Cathell, J.
|||Raker, J. concurs in result only
|||We initially note that these are cases of first impression for this Court.
For that matter, precious few courts in the United States have addressed
the issues presented in the cases at bar. *fn1
In respect to nontherapeutic research using minors, it has been noted that
"consent to research has been virtually unanalyzed by courts and legislatures."
R. Katerberg, Review Boards, Research on Children, and Informed Consent
of Parents: Walking the Tightrope Between Encouraging Vital Experimentation
and Protecting Subjects Rights, citing National Commission for the Protection
of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Report and Recommendations
[National Commission]: Research Involving Children 79-80 (1977). Our research
reveals this statement remains as accurate now as it was in 1977.
|||In these present cases, a prestigious research institute, associated with
Johns Hopkins University, based on this record, created a nontherapeutic
research program *fn2 whereby it required
certain classes of homes to have only partial lead paint abatement modifications
performed, and in at least some instances, including at least one of the
cases at bar, arranged for the landlords to receive public funding by way
of grants or loans to aid in the modifications. The research institute then
encouraged, and in at least one of the cases at bar, required, the landlords
to rent the premises to families with young children. In the event young
children already resided in one of the study houses, it was contemplated
that a child would remain in the premises, and the child was encouraged
to remain, in order for his or her blood to be periodically analyzed. In
other words, the continuing presence of the children that were the subjects
of the study was required in order for the study to be complete. Apparently,
the children and their parents involved in the cases sub judice were from
a lower economic strata and were, at least in one case, minorities.
|||The purpose of the research was to determine how effective varying degrees
of lead paint abatement procedures were. Success was to be determined by
periodically, over a two-year period of time, measuring the extent to which
lead dust remained in, or returned to, the premises after the varying levels
of abatement modifications, and, as most important to our decision, by measuring
the extent to which the theretofore healthy children's blood became contaminated
with lead, and comparing that contamination with levels of lead dust in
the houses over the same periods of time. In respect to one of the protocols
presented to the Environmental Protection Agency and/or the Johns Hopkins
Joint Committee on Clinical Investigation, the Johns Hopkins Institutional
Review Board (IRB), the researchers stated: "To help insure that study
dwellings are occupied by families with young children, City Homes *fn3
will give priority to families with young children when renting the vacant
units following R & M [Repair and Maintenance] interventions."
|||The same researchers had completed a prior study on abatement and partial
abatement methods that indicated that lead dust remained and/or returned
to abated houses over a period of time. In an article reporting on that
study, the very same researchers said: "Exposure to lead-bearing dust
is particularly hazardous for children because hand to mouth activity is
recognized as a major source of entry of lead dust into the body and because
absorption of lead dust is inversely related to particulate size."
R. Farfel & J. Chisolm, Health and Environmental Outcomes of Traditional
and Modified Practices for Abatement of Residential Lead-Based Paint, -
American Journal of Public Health -(1990). After publishing this report,
the researchers began the present research project in which children were
encouraged to reside in households where the possibility of lead dust was
known to the researcher to be likely, so that the lead dust content of their
blood could be compared with the level of lead dust in the houses at periodic
intervals over a two-year period.
|||Apparently, it was anticipated that the children, who were the human subjects
in the program, would, or at least might, accumulate lead in their blood
from the dust, thus helping the researchers to determine the extent to which
the various partial abatement methods worked. There was no complete and
clear explanation in the consent agreements signed by the parents of the
children that the research to be conducted was designed, at least in significant
part, to measure the success of the abatement procedures by measuring the
extent to which the children's blood was being contaminated. It can be argued
that the researchers intended that the children be the canaries in the mines
but never clearly told the parents. (It was a practice in earlier years,
and perhaps even now, for subsurface miners to rely on canaries to determine
whether dangerous levels of toxic gasses were accumulating in the mines.
Canaries were particularly susceptible to such gasses. When the canaries
began to die, the miners knew that dangerous levels of gasses were accumulating.)
|||The researchers and their Institutional Review Board apparently saw nothing
wrong with the search protocols that anticipated the possible accumulation
of lead in the blood of otherwise healthy children as a result of the experiment,
or they believed that the consents of the parents of the children made the
research appropriate. Institutional Review Boards (IRB) are oversight entities
within the institutional family to which an entity conducting research belongs.
In research experiments, an IRB can be required in some instances by either
federal or state regulation, or sometimes by the conditions attached to
governmental grants that are used to fund research projects. *fn4
Generally, their primary functions are to assess the protocols of the project
to determine whether the project itself is appropriate, whether the consent
procedures are adequate, whether the methods to be employed meet proper
standards, whether reporting requirements are sufficient, and the assessment
of various other aspects of a research project. One of the most important
objectives of such review is the review of the potential safety and the
health hazard impact of a research project on the human subjects of the
experiment, especially on vulnerable subjects such as children. Their function
is not to help researchers seek funding for research projects.
|||In the instant case, as is suggested by some commentators as being endemic
to the research community as a whole, infra, the IRB involved here, the
Johns Hopkins University Joint Committee on Clinical Investigation, in part,
abdicated that responsibility, instead suggesting to the researchers a way
to miscast the characteristics of the study in order to avoid the responsibility
inherent in nontherapeutic research involving children. In a letter dated
May 11, 1992, the Johns Hopkins University Joint Committee on Clinical Investigation
(the IRB for the University ), charged with insuring the safety of the subjects
and compliance with federal regulations, wrote to Dr. Farfel, the person
in charge of the research: "A number of questions come up. . . . Please
respond to the following points:
|||2. The next issue has to do with drawing blood from the control population,
namely children growing up in modern urban housing. Federal guidelines are
really quite specific regarding using children as controls in property in
which there are no potential benefits [to the particular children]. To call
a control a normal control is to indicate that there is no benefit to be
received [by the particular children]. . . . So we think it would be much
more acceptable to indicate that the `control group' is being studied to
determine what exposure outside the home may play in total lead exposure
thereby indicating that these control individuals are gaining some benefit,
namely learning whether safe housing alone is sufficient to keep the blood
levels in acceptable bounds. We suggest you modify . . . consent forms .
. . accordingly." [Emphasis added.]
|||While the suggestion of the IRB would not make this experiment any less
nontherapeutic or, thus, less regulated, this statement shows two things:
(1) that the IRB had a partial misperception of the difference between therapeutic
and nontherapeutic research and the IRB's role in the process and (2) that
the IRB was willing to aid researchers in getting around federal regulations
designed to protect children used as subjects in nonthereapeutic research.
An IRB's primary role is to assure the safety of human research subjects
- not help researchers avoid safety or health-related requirements. The
IRB, in this case, misconceived, at least partially, its own role.
|||The provisions or conditions imposed by the federal funding entities,
pursuant to federal regulations, are conditions attached to funding. As
far as we are aware, or have been informed, there are no federal or state
(Maryland) statutes that mandate that all research be subject to certain
conditions. Certain international "codes" or "declarations"
exist (one of which is supposedly binding but has never been so held) that,
at least in theory, establish standards. We shall describe them, infra.
Accordingly, we write on a clean slate in this case. We are guided, as we
determine what is appropriate, by those international "codes"
or "declarations," as well as by studies conducted by various
governmental entities, by the treatises and other writings on the ethics
of using children as research subjects, and by the duties, if any, arising
out of the use of children as subjects of research.
|||Otherwise healthy children, *fn5 in
our view, should not be enticed into living in, or remaining in, potentially
lead-tainted housing and intentionally subjected to a research program,
which contemplates the probability, or even the possibility, of lead poisoning
or even the accumulation of lower levels of lead in blood, in order for
the extent of the contamination of the children's blood to be used by scientific
researchers to assess the success of lead paint or lead dust abatement measures.
Moreover, in our view, parents, whether improperly enticed by trinkets,
food stamps, money or other items, have no more right to intentionally and
unnecessarily place children in potentially hazardous nontherapeutic research
surroundings, than do researchers. In such cases, parental consent, no matter
how informed, is insufficient.
|||While the validity of the consent agreement and its nature as a contract,
the existence or nonexistence of a special relationship, and whether the
researchers performed their functions under that agreement pursuant to any
special relationships are important issues in these cases that we will address,
the very inappropriateness of the research itself cannot be overlooked.
It is apparent that the protocols of research are even more important than
the method of obtaining parental consent and the extent to which the parents
were, or were not, informed. If the research methods, the protocols, are
inappropriate then, especially when the IRB is willing to help researchers
avoid compliance with applicable safety requirements for using children
in nontherapeutic research, the consent of the parents, or of any consent
surrogates, in our view, cannot make the research appropriate or the actions
of the researchers and the Institutional Review Board proper.
|||The research relationship proffered to the parents of the children the
researchers wanted to use as measuring tools, should never have been presented
in a nontherapeutic context in the first instance. Nothing about the research
was designed for treatment of the subject children. They were presumed to
be healthy at the commencement of the project. As to them, the research
was clearly nontherapeutic in nature. The experiment was simply a "for
the greater good" project *fn6 .
The specific children's health was put at risk, in order to develop low-cost
abatement measures that would help all children, the landlords, and the
general public as well.
|||It was noted in Garnett, Why Informed Consent? Human Experimentation and
the Ethics of Autonomy, 36 Catholic Lawyer 455, 490 (1996) that:
|||"Most research poses no problems and is easily legitimated and justified,
but the subject's consent to these experiments is not, by itself, a reliable
indicator that they are justified, nor is it itself what justifies them."
|||In Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1928), Justice Brandis,
|||"Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty
when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally
alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest
dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning
but without understanding."
|||The research project at issue here, and its apparent protocols, differs
in large degree from, but presents similar problems as those in the Tuskegee
Syphilis Study conducted from 1932 until 1972 (The Tuskagee Syphilis Study,
289 New England Journal of Medicine 730 (1973)), the intentional exposure
of soldiers to radiation in the 1940s and 50s (Jaffee v. United States,
663 F.2d 1226 (3d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 972, 102 S. Ct. 2234,
72 L. Ed. 2d 845 (1982)), the tests involving the exposure of Navajo miners
to radiation (Begay v. United States, 591 F. Supp. 991 (1984), aff'd, 768
F.2d 1059 (9th Cir. 1985), *fn7 and the
secret administration of LSD to soldiers by the CIA and the Army in the
1950s and 60s (United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669, 107 S. Ct. 3054,
97 L. Ed. 2d 550 (1987); Central Intelligence Agency v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159,
105 S. Ct. 1881, 85 L. Ed. 2d 173 (1985)). The research experiments that
follow were also prior instances of research subjects being intentionally
exposed to infectious or poisonous substances in the name of scientific
research. They include the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, aforesaid, where patients
infected with syphilis were not subsequently informed of the availability
of penicillin for treatment of the illness, in order for the scientists
and researchers to be able to continue research on the effects of the illness,
the Jewish Hospital study, *fn8 and several
other post-war research projects. Then there are the notorious use of "plague
bombs" by the Japanese military in World War II where entire villages
were infected in order for the results to be "studied"; *fn9
and perhaps most notorious, the deliberate use of infection in a nontherapeutic
project in order to study the degree of infection and the rapidity of the
course of the disease in the Rose and Mrugowsky typhus experiments at Buchenwald
concentration camp during World War II. These programs were somewhat alike
in the vulnerability of the subjects; uneducated African-American men, debilitated
patients in a charity hospital, prisoners of war, inmates of concentration
camps and others falling within the custody and control of the agencies
conducting or approving the experiments. In the present case, children,
especially young children, living in lower economic circumstances, albeit
not as vulnerable as the other examples, are nonetheless, vulnerable as
|||It is clear to this Court that the scientific and medical communities
cannot be permitted to assume sole authority to determine ultimately what
is right and appropriate in respect to research projects involving young
children free of the limitations and consequences of the application of
Maryland law. The Institutional Review Boards, IRBs, are, primarily, in-house
organs. In our view, they are not designed, generally, to be sufficiently
objective in the sense that they are as sufficiently concerned with the
ethicality of the experiments they review as they are with the success of
the experiments. This has been the subject of comment in a constitutional
context, in dissent, in a case involving the use of psychiatric medication
on mental patients without their consent. In Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S.
210, 238, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1045, 108 L. Ed. 2d (1990), Justice Stevens said:
|||"The Court has undervalued respondents' liberty interest; has misread
the Washington involuntary medication policy . . . , and has concluded that
a mock trial before an institutionally biased tribunal constitutes `due
process of law.'"
|||In footnote two of his dissent, Justice Stevens noted:
|||"(The Constitution's promise of due process of law guarantees at
least compensation for violations of the principle stated by the Nuremberg
Military Tribunals `that the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely
essential . . . to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts.') (The Fourteenth
Amendment protects the `freedom to care for one's health and person.') .
. . ." 494 U.S. at 238, 110 S. Ct. at ___, 108 L. Ed. 2d at ___.
|||As can be seen from the letter from the Johns Hopkins University Joint
Committee on Clinical Investigation, supra, to the researchers in this case,
Justice Steven's doubts as to the effectiveness of such in-house review
to assess the ethics of research were warranted. Here, the IRB, whose primary
function was to insure safety and compliance with applicable regulations,
encouraged the researchers to misrepresent the purpose of the research in
order to bring the study under the label of "therapeutic" and
thus under a lower safety standard of regulation. The IRB's purpose was
ethically wrong, and its understanding of the experiment's benefit incorrect.
|||The conflicts are inherent. This would be especially so when science and
private industry collaborate in search of material gains. Moreover, the
special relationship between research entities and human subjects used in
the research will almost always impose duties. In respect to examining that
special relationship, we are obliged to further examine its nature and its
ethical constraints. In that regard, when contested cases arise, the assessment
of the legal effect of research on human subjects must always be subject
to judicial evaluation. One method of making such evaluations is the initiation
of appropriate actions bringing such matters to the attention of the courts,
as has been done in the cases at bar. It may well be that in the end, the
trial courts will determine that no damages have been incurred in the instant
cases and thus the actions will fail for that reason. In that regard, we
note that there are substantial factual differences in the Higgins and in
the Grimes cases. But the actions, themselves, are not defective on the
ground that no legal duty can, according to the trial courts, possibly exist.
For the reasons discussed at length in the main body of the opinion, a legal
duty normally exists between researcher and subject and in all probability
exists in the cases at bar. Moreover, as we shall discuss, the consents
of the parents in these cases under Maryland law constituted contracts creating
duties. Additionally, under Maryland law, to the extent parental consent
can ever be effective in research projects of this nature, the parents may
not have been sufficiently informed and, therefore, the consents ineffective
and, based on the information contained in the sparse records before this
court, the research project, may have invaded the legal rights of the children
subjected to it.
|||I. The Cases
|||We now discuss more specifically the two cases before us, and the relevant
|||Two separate negligence actions involving children who allegedly developed
elevated levels of lead dust in their blood while participating in a research
study with respondent, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc., (KKI) are before
this Court. Both cases allege that the children were poisoned, or at least
exposed to the risk of being poisoned, by lead dust due to negligence on
the part of KKI. Specifically, they allege that KKI discovered lead hazards
in their respective homes and, having a duty to notify them, failed to warn
in a timely manner or otherwise act to prevent the children's exposure to
the known presence of lead. Additionally, plaintiffs alleged that they were
not fully informed of the risks of the research. In the first case, Number
128, appellant, Ericka Grimes, by her mother Viola Hughes, appeals from
a ruling of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granting KKI's motion for
summary judgment based on the sole ground that as a matter of law there
was no legal duty, under the circumstances here present, on the part of
KKI, owed to the appellants. In the second case, Number 129, appellant,
Myron Higgins, by his mother Catina Higgins, and Catina Higgins, individually,
appeal from a ruling of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granting KKI's
motion for summary judgment based on the ground that KKI had no legal duty
to warn them of the presence of lead dust. The parties, in their respective
appeals, presented almost identical issues to the Court of Special Appeals.
Prior to consideration by that court, we granted certiorari to address these
similar issues. We rephrase the issues in both cases in the language presented
by appellants in Case Number 129:
|||"Was the trial court incorrect in ruling on a motion for summary
judgment that as a matter of law a research entity conducting an ongoing
non-therapeutic scientific study does not have a duty to warn a minor volunteer
participant and/or his legal guardian regarding dangers present when the
researcher has knowledge of the potential for harm to the subject and the
subject is unaware of the danger?"*fn10
|||We answer in the affirmative. The trial court was incorrect. Such research
programs normally create special relationships and/or can be of a contractual
nature, that create duties. The breaches of such duties may ultimately result
in viable negligence actions. Because, at the very least, there are viable
and genuine disputes of material fact concerning whether a special relationship,
or other relationships arising out of agreements, giving rise to duties
existed between KKI and both sets of appellants, we hold that the Circuit
Court erred in granting KKI's motions for summary judgment in both cases
before this Court. Accordingly, we vacate the rulings of the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City and remand these cases to that court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
|||II. Facts & Procedural Background
|||A. The Research Study
|||In 1993, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded Contract 68-D4-0001,
entitled "Evaluation of Efficacy of Residential Lead Based Paint Repair
and Maintenance Interventions" to KKI. KKI was to receive $200,000
for performing its responsibilities under the contract. It was thus a compensated
researcher. The purpose of this research study was "to characterize
and compare the short and long-term efficacy of comprehensive lead-paint
abatement and less costly and potentially more cost-effective Repair and
Maintenance interventions for reducing levels of lead in residential house
dust which in turn should reduce lead in children's blood." As KKI
acknowledged in its Clinical Investigation Consent Form, "[L]ead poisoning
in children is a problem in Baltimore City and other communities across
the country. Lead in paint, house dust and outside soil are major sources
of lead exposure for children. Children can also be exposed to lead in drinking
water and other sources." Lead poisoning poses a distinct danger to
young children. It adversely effects cognitive development, growth, and
behavior. Extremely high levels have been known to result in seizures, coma,
and even death. See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations
for Blood Lead Screening of Young Children Enrolled in Medicaid: Targeting
a Group at High Risk, 49 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1 (Dec. 8,
|||Dr. Mark R. Farfel Sc.D., Director of KKI's Lead Abatement Department,
testified in his deposition:
|||"The scientific goal of the study is to document the longevity of
various lead base paint abatement strategies, factored in terms of reducing
lead exposure in house dust and the children's blood lead levels.*fn11
|||A. Our study design called for collection of blood lead, venous blood
lead from participating children.
|||. . . Study protocol called for serial blood lead tests corresponding
with the dust collection campaigns. . . . The study goal was to get a baseline,
two months, six months, twelve months, eighteen months evaluation.
|||. . . The study protocol, the data collection protocol was to get close
in time the environmental measurements and the venous blood lead. . . ."
|||The research study was sponsored jointly by the EPA and the Maryland Department
of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). It was thus a joint federal
and state project. The Baltimore City Health Department and Maryland Department
of the Environment also collaborated in the study. It appears *fn12
that, because the study was funded and sponsored in part by a federal entity,
certain federal conditions were attached to the funding grants and approvals.
There are certain uniform standards required in respect to federally funded
or approved projects. We, however, are unaware of, and have not been directed
to, any federal or state statute or regulation that imposes limits on this
Court's powers to conduct its review of the issues presented. None of the
parties have questioned this Court's jurisdiction in these cases. Moreover,
45 Code Federal Regulations (CFR) 46.117(e) specifically provides: "The
informed consent requirements of the policy are not intended to preempt
any applicable federal, state or local laws which require additional information
to be disclosed in order for informed consent to be legally effective."
Those various federal or state conditions, recommendations, etc., may well
be relevant at a trial on the merits as to whether any breach of a contractual
or other duty occurred, or whether negligence did, in fact, occur; but have
no limiting effect on the issue of whether, at law, legal duties, via contract
or "special relationships" are created in Maryland in experimental
nontherapeutic research involving Maryland children.
|||The research study included five test groups, each consisting of twenty-five
houses The first three groups consisted of houses with a considerable amount
of lead dust present therein *fn13 and
each group received assigned amounts of maintenance and repair. The fourth
group consisted of houses, which at one time had lead present in the form
of lead based paint but had since received a supposedly complete abatement
of lead dust. The fifth group consisted of modern houses, which had never
had a presence of lead dust. The aim of the research study was to analyze
the effectiveness of different degrees of partial lead paint abatement in
reducing levels of lead dust present in these houses. The ultimate aim of
the research was to find a less than complete level of abatement that would
be relatively safe, but economical, so that Baltimore landlords with lower
socio-economical rental units would not abandon the units. The research
study was specifically designed, in part, to do less than comprehensive
lead paint abatement in order to study the potential effectiveness, if any,
over a period of time, of lesser levels of repair and maintenance on the
presence of lead dust by measuring the presence of lead in the blood of
theretofore (as far as the record of the cases reveals) healthy children.
In essence, the study at its inception was designed not only to test current
levels of lead in the blood of the children, but the increase or decrease
in future lead levels in the blood that would be affected by the various
abatement programs. It appears that this study was also partially motivated,
as we have indicated, supra, by the reaction of property owners in Baltimore
City to the cost of lead dust abatement. The cost of full abatement of such
housing at times far exceeded the monetary worth of the property - in other
words, the cost of full abatement was simply too high for certain landlords
to be able to afford to pay or be willing to pay. As a result, some lower
level rental properties containing lead based paint in Baltimore had been
simply abandoned and left vacant. The study was attempting to determine
whether a less expensive means of rehabilitation could be available to the
owners of such properties.
|||One way the study was designed to measure the effectiveness of such abatement
measures was to measure the lead dust levels in the houses at intervals
and to compare them with the levels of lead found, at roughly the same intervals,
in the blood of the children living in the respective houses. The project
required that small children be present in the houses. To facilitate that
purpose, the landlords agreeing to permit their properties to be included
in the studies were encouraged, if not required, to rent the properties
to tenants who had young children.
|||In return for permitting the properties to be used and in return for limiting
their tenants to families with young children, KKI assisted the landlords
in applying for and receiving grants or loans of money to be used to perform
the levels of abatement required by KKI for each class of home.
|||The research study was to be composed of two main components and a total
of five groups of study houses. *fn14
The first component of the study concerned the first three groups of houses.
Houses in each group received different amounts of repair and maintenance.
*fn15 The following three groups of
houses within the first component of the research study were:
|||Group 1 - Repair & Maintenance Level I - Properties receiving a minimal
level of repair and maintenance ($1,650.00).
|||Group 2 - Repair & Maintenance Level II - Properties receiving a greater
level of repair and maintenance ($3,500.00).
|||Group 3 - Repair & Maintenance Level III - Properties receiving an
even greater level of repair and maintenance ($6,000.00 - $7,000.00).
|||Repair & Maintenance Level I interventions were capped by DHCD at
$1,650 and included wet-scraping of peeling and flaking lead-based paint
and paint of unknown composition on all interior surfaces, including walls,
trim, and doors; repainting of treated surfaces; installation of window
well caps; repainting of all exterior window trim, repainting of all interior
window sills; vacuuming of all horizontal surfaces and window components
with a high efficiency particulate (HEPA) vacuum; and wet cleaning all horizontal
surfaces. Level II interventions were capped by DHCD at $3,500 and included
all the elements of Level I intervention plus two key additional elements:
use of sealants and paints to make floors smoother and more easily cleanable,
and in-place window and door treatments to reduce abrasion of lead-painted
surfaces. Level III interventions were capped by DHCD at $6,000 - $7000
and added window replacement and encapsulation of exterior door trim with
aluminum, and the use of coverings on some floors and stairs to make them
smooth and more easily climbable. *fn16
|||Measurements of lead in the blood of the children and vacuum dust samples
from the houses were to be obtained at the following times: pre-intervention,
immediately post intervention, and one, three, six, twelve, eighteen, and
twenty-four months post intervention. Measurements of lead in the exterior
soil were to be obtained at pre-intervention, immediately post intervention,
and twelve and twenty-four months post intervention. Measurements of lead
in drinking water were to be obtained at pre-intervention, and twelve and
twenty-four months post intervention. Additionally, the parents of the child
subjects of the study were to fill out a questionnaire at enrollment and
at six-month intervals.
|||The second component of the research study was composed of two control
|||Group 4 - Properties identified as having previously been completely abated
of lead paint which were to receive no additional repair and maintenance.
|||Group 5 - Modern Urban Dwellings - Properties constructed after 1980 and
presumed not to have lead-based paint which were to receive no repair and
|||The study called for similar collection and evaluation of blood, dust
samples, soil, and drinking water for lead content at similar time intervals
as the first component. Measurements of lead in blood of the children and
in vacuum dust samples in these houses were to be obtained at enrollment
and six, twelve, eighteen, and twenty-four months post enrollment. Measurements
of lead in the exterior soil and drinking water were to be obtained at enrollment,
and at twelve and twenty-four months post enrollment. The participants in
the fourth and fifth groups were instructed to fill out a questionnaire
at enrollment and at six-month intervals.
|||The research study was to collect data from all five groups over a period
of two years. There were two sets of criteria for enrollment in the research
study - one for the properties and one for the residents. With respect to
the properties involved in the first three test groups, the researchers
were looking for structurally sound properties that had been built prior
to 1941 *fn17 or had documented lead-based
paint in the unit based upon XRF testing. *fn18
As Dr. Farfel testified in his deposition, "We were basically looking
for the two-story, six-room rowhouse in Baltimore City with 8 to 10 windows
in a structurally sound condition." Once a property was selected for
use in the study, it was randomly assigned a repair and maintenance intervention
level of I, II, or III. *fn19
|||With respect to the occupants, the researchers recruited families that
had at least one small child. Dr. Farfel testified:
|||"For the family participant side, we were looking for families that
obviously were willing to cooperate with the study by signing informed consent
statements. We were looking for families that had at least one child under
the age of 48 months and older than five months at the start of the study.
These children were not to be mentally retarded or severely handicapped
in any way that would limit their physical movement.
|||We were also excluding children that had sickle cell anemia, to the best
of our knowledge, had sickle cell anemia.
|||We asked the families if they had any immediate plans to move. If they
did, then they weren't eligible because we were interested in following
the family over a period of years."
|||In summary, KKI conducted a study of five test groups of twenty-five houses
each. *fn20 The first three groups consisted
of houses known to have lead present. The amount of repair and maintenance
conducted increased from Group 1 to Group 2 to Group 3. The fourth group
consisted of houses, which had at one time lead present but had since allegedly
received a complete abatement of lead dust. The fifth group consisted of
modern houses, which had never had the presence of lead dust. The twenty-five
homes in each of the first three testing levels were then to be compared
to the two control groups: the twenty-five homes in Group 4 that had previously
been abated and the 25 modern homes in Group 5. The research study was specifically
designed to do less than full lead dust abatement in some of the categories
of houses in order to study the potential effectiveness, if any, of lesser
levels of repair and maintenance.
|||If the children were to leave the houses upon the first manifestation
of lead dust, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to test, over time,
the rate of the level of lead accumulation in the blood of the children
attributable to the manifestation. In other words, if the children were
removed from the houses before the lead dust levels in their blood became
elevated, the tests would probably fail, or at least the data that would
establish the success of the test - or of the abatement results, would be
of questionable use. Thus, it would benefit the accuracy of the test, and
thus KKI, the compensated researcher, if children remained in the houses
over the period of the study even after the presence of lead dust in the
houses became evident.
|||B. Case No. 128
|||Appellant, Ericka Grimes, resided at 1713 N. Monroe Street in Baltimore,
Maryland (the Monroe Street property) with members of her family from the
time of her birth on May 30, 1992, up until the summer of 1994. Her mother,
Viola Hughes, had lived in the property since the Summer of 1990. In March
1993, representatives of KKI came to Ms. Hughes's home and successfully
recruited her to participate in the research study. After a discussion regarding
the nature, purpose, scope, and benefits of the study, Ms. Hughes agreed
to participate and signed a Consent Form dated March 10, 1993.
|||Nowhere in the consent form was it clearly disclosed to the mother that
the researchers contemplated that, as a result of the experiment, the child
might accumulate lead in her blood, and that in order for the experiment
to succeed it was necessary that the child remain in the house as the lead
in the child's blood increased or decreased, so that it could be measured.
The Consent Form states in relevant part:
|||"PURPOSE OF STUDY:
|||As you may know, lead poisoning in children is a problem in Baltimore
City and other communities across the country. Lead in paint, house dust
and outside soil are major sources of lead exposure for children. Children
can also be exposed to lead in drinking water and other sources. We understand
that your house is going to have special repairs*fn21
done in order to reduce exposure to lead in paint and dust. On a random
basis, homes will receive one of two levels of repair. We are interested
in finding out how well the two levels of repair work. The repairs are not
intended, or expected, to completely remove exposure to lead.
|||We are now doing a study to learn about how well different practices work
for reducing exposure to lead in paint and dust. We are asking you and over
one hundred other families to allow us to test for lead in and around your
homes up to 8 to 9 times over the next two years provided that your house
qualifies for the full two years of study. Final eligibility will be determined
after the initial testing of your home. We are also doing free blood lead
testing of children aged 6 months to 7 years, up to 8 to 9 times over the
next two years. We would also like you to respond to a short questionnaire
every 6 months. This study is intended to monitor the effects of the repairs
and is not intended to replace the regular medical care your family obtains.
|||To compensate you for your time answering questions and allowing us to
sketch your home we will mail you a check in the amount of $5.00. In the
future we would mail you a check in the amount of $15 each time the full
questionnaire is completed. The dust, soil, water, and blood samples would
be tested for lead at the Kennedy Krieger Institute at no charge to you.
We would provide you with specific blood-lead results. We would contact
you to discuss a summary of house test results and steps that you could
take to reduce any risks of exposure." [Emphasis added.]
|||Pursuant to the plans of the research study, KKI collected dust samples
in the Monroe Street property on March 9, 1993, August 23, 1993, March 9,
1994, September 19, 1994, April 18, 1995, and November 13, 1995. *fn22
The March 9, 1993 dust testing revealed what the researchers referred to
as "hot spots" where the level of lead was "higher than might
be found in a completely renovated [abated] house." This information
about the "hot spots" was not furnished to Ms. Hughes until December
16, 1993, more than nine months after the samples had been collected and,
as we discuss, infra, not until after Ericka Grimes's blood was found to
contain elevated levels of lead.
|||KKI drew blood from Ericka Grimes for lead content analysis on April,
9, 1993, September 15, 1993, and March 25, 1994. Unlike the lead concentration
analysis in dust testing, the results of the blood testing were typically
available to KKI in a matter of days. KKI notified Ms. Hughes of the results
of the blood tests by letters dated April 9, 1993, September 29, 1993, and
March 28, 1994, respectively. The results of the April 9, 1993 test found
Ericka Grimes blood to be less than 9 ęg/dL, which placed her results in
the "normal" range according to classifications established by
the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). *fn23
However, on two subsequent retests, long after KKI had identified "hot
spots," but before KKI informed Ms. Hughes of the "hot spots,"
Ericka Grimes's blood lead level registered Class III - 32 ęg/dL on September
15, 1993 and 22 ęg/dL on March 25, 1994. Ms. Hughes and her daughter vacated
the Monroe Street property in the Summer of 1994, and, therefore, no further
blood samples were obtained by KKI after March 25, 1994.
|||In her Complaint filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Ms. Hughes
sought to hold KKI liable for negligence for failing to warn of, or abate,
lead-paint hazards that KKI allegedly discovered in the Monroe Street property
during the research study. Specifically, she alleged:
|||"3. As part of the [Research] Study, [appellant's] mother agreed
to allow [KKI] to periodically inspect the Monroe Street property for the
presence of lead-paint hazards. Upon inspection, [KKI] discovered the existence
of lead-paint hazards within [appellant's] home, but failed to inform and/or
warn [appellant] and her mother of such hazards and failed to take any action
to abate said hazards. As a consequence, [appellant] and her mother continued
to reside in the home unaware of the hazards and unaware of the dangers
to which [appellant] was being exposed."
|||KKI filed a Third Party Complaint against JJB, Inc., (JJB) the owners
of the Monroe Street property. Appellant filed an Amended Complaint to add
JJB as an additional defendant alleging negligence and violations of the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act. KKI filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
on the grounds that it did not owe any duty to appellant that it had breached.
On July 26, 2000, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted KKI's motion
and entered judgment in favor of KKI. Appellant dismissed her claims against
JJB and filed a Notice of Appeal on September 12, 2000. On February 8, 2001,
prior to consideration by the Court of Special Appeals, we issued a Writ
|||On appeal, appellant seeks review of the Circuit Court's decision granting
KKI summary judgment. She contends that KKI owed a duty of care to appellant
based on the nature of its relationship with appellant and her mother arising
out of: (1) a contract between the parties; (2) a voluntary assumption by
KKI; (3) a "special relationship" between the parties; and (4)
a Federal regulation. She argues that KKI's failure to notify her of the
lead dust hazards in the Monroe Street property until after more than nine
months had passed since the samples had been collected, and until after
Ericka Grimes's blood was found to be lead poisoned, constituted negligence
on the part of KKI in the performance of its duties to Ericka arising out
of the nature of the relationship between the parties.
|||C. Case No. 129
|||In 1993, Mr. Polakoff, a professional owner and operator of rental properties,
had been recruited as a landlord by KKI through the Property Owners Association,
to volunteer the Federal Street property to the research study. His property
met the researchers' criteria, which we discussed, supra - that it was a
structurally sound property, built prior to 1941, that had documented levels
of lead-based paint in the unit. In December of 1993, KKI had Mr. Polakoff's
property tested by an outside contractor and it tested positive for lead
paint and dust throughout the house. Once accepted into the program, Mr.
Polakoff's property was randomly assigned a Repair & Maintenance Level
II intervention and subsequently underwent the repairs associated with Level
II intervention, discussed, supra, by Environmental Restoration, Inc. (Environmental).
Mr. Polakoff applied for a $3,500 loan from the Maryland Department of the
Environment to pay for the repairs, which was granted. The repairs were
completed in approximately April 1994. *fn24
|||Appellant, Myron Higgins, was born on December 23, 1989. According to
Ms. Catina Higgins's deposition testimony, during the Spring of 1994 she
was looking for a home in which to reside with her several small children.
She located the property known as 1906 East Federal Street (the Federal
Street property) in an advertisement in the local newspaper listing the
property as a rental for $315 per month. She rented the property from CFOD-2
Limited Partnership. *fn25 She signed
a lease for the property on May 13, 1994 and moved in shortly thereafter.
|||On May 17, 1994, KKI collected and analyzed immediate post intervention
samples of dust using an experimental Cyclone dust collector. *fn26
A composite sample of dust from the first floor was 533 ęg/ft2, *fn27
a composite sample of the first floor windowsill was 2274 ęg/ft2, and a
composite sample of the interior entrance was 1530 ęg/ft2. On July 25, 1994,
pursuant to the protocols of the research study, a second series of dust
samples were obtained from the Federal Street property. While several of
the first floor lead dust levels dropped in value, this second sample found
that lead dust in the second floor area, which had registered figures under
the clearance level in the first sampling, were markedly increased.
|||After the Higgins family moved into the partially abated, vacant Federal
Street property, KKI approached Ms. Higgins and requested that she and her
son participate in the research study. Her participation and consent, in
addition to the landlord's previous consent for abatement of the property,
was necessary to permit KKI to enter the property to collect future dust
samples from the Federal Street property and to obtain blood samples from
her son. On May 24, 1994, Ms. Higgins agreed to participate and signed a
Consent Form regarding her and her child's participation in the study. As
in Case No. 128 the consent form did not contain a clear disclosure that
the researchers contemplated that, as a result of the experiment, the child
subjects might, and perhaps were anticipated to, accumulate some level of
lead contamination of their blood, and that the lead content of the children's
blood would be one of the methods by which the study would determine the
effectiveness of the various abatement procedures.
|||Pursuant to the protocols of the research study, KKI collected dust samples
in the Federal Street property on May 17, 1994, July 25, 1994, and November
3, 1994. KKI informed Ms. Higgins of the dust sample results by letters
dated June 24, 1994, September 14, 1994, and February 7, 1995, respectively.
Although KKI had recorded high levels of lead concentration in the dust
samples collected by the Cyclone vacuum during the May 17, 1994 visit, KKI
failed to disclose this information to Ms. Higgins in the letter dated June
24, 1994. *fn28 Instead, KKI relied
on the results obtained from the dust wipe samples collected and informed
her that there was no area in her house where the lead level was higher
than what might have been found in a completely renovated house. The dust
samples collected by dust wipe methodology in July and November showed areas
above the clearance levels and KKI did inform Ms. Higgins of these elevated
levels in the subsequent letters. Ms. Higgins contends that KKI knew of
the presence of high levels of lead-based paint and dust in the Federal
Street property as early as December of 1993, that even after Level II intervention
it still had high levels as of June 24, 1994, and that it was not until
she received a letter dated September 14, 1994 that KKI specifically informed
Ms. Higgins of the fact that her house had elevated lead levels.
|||KKI drew blood from Myron Higgins for lead content analysis on June 8,
1994, July 29, 1994, and November 9, 1994. KKI notified Ms. Higgins of the
results of the blood tests by letters dated July 18, 1994, August 2, 1994,
and December 6, 1994, respectively. The results of the tests were 17.5 ęg/dL,
21 ęg/dL, and 11 ęg/dL, respectively. The first and third tests placed him
in the CDC Class IIA while the second test placed him in CDC Class III.
KKI told Ms. Higgins that it had informed the BCHD of the second result
and that she "should provide the test result to [her] child's primary
health care provider right away."
|||Ms. Higgins contends that KKI was negligent in its failure to inform her
of its knowledge of the high levels of lead dust recorded by both XRF testing
in December 1993, prior to her moving into the unit and prior to the abatement
modification, and from the samples collected via the Cyclone vacuum in May
1994. Ms. Higgins asserts that this withholding of information combined
with KKI's letter dated June 24, 1994 informing her solely of the lower
results of the samples collected by dust wipe methodology was misleading
to her as a participant in the study. She implies that it gave her a false
sense of security that there were no potential lead-based paint or dust
hazards in her house.
|||Appellants, Myron Higgins, by his mother Catina Higgins, and Catina Higgins,
individually, filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on February
26, 1995 against Mr. Polakoff. Appellants amended their Complaint to add
Chase Management, Inc., and CFOD-2 Limited Partnership as defendants to
this lawsuit. *fn29 On April 29, 1999,
Appellants further amended their Complaint to add KKI and Environmental
as additional defendants. In her Complaint filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Ms. Higgins sought to hold KKI liable for negligence on
several different grounds. Specifically, she alleged:
|||"8. Both [KKI] and Environmental were negligent in undertaking to
abate, paint and repair the premises prior to and/or during the children's
occupancy and doing so in an unreasonable, incomplete, unworkmanlike and/or
|||9. Both [KKI] and Environmental were negligent in performing the lead
abatement in such a fashion as to increase, rather than decrease, the children's
exposure to lead, including, but not limited to, performing the abatement
using methods, which foreseeably increased the lead dust in the premises,
performing improper or inadequate cleanup, leaving lead debris on the premises
or in the vicinity of the premises accessible to the child.
|||10. Both [KKI] and Environmental failed to warn [appellants] or the adult
caretaker of the lead hazard, which [KKI] and Environmental or their agents
knew or should have known or had reason to know existed in the premises.
|||11. And [KKI and Environmental] were otherwise negligent."
|||KKI filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that it did not
owe any duty to appellants. *fn30 On
April 5, 2000, the Circuit Court granted KKI's motion and entered judgment
in favor of KKI. On May 4, 2000, appellants filed a Motion to Reconsider,
which the Circuit Court denied on May 25, 2000. Appellants dismissed their
claims against Polakoff, Chase Management and CFOD-2 Limited Partnership
and filed a Notice of Appeal on July 20, 2000. On February 8, 2001, prior
to consideration by the Court of Special Appeals, we issued a Writ of Certiorari.
|||D. The Trial Courts' Findings
|||In Case No.128 (Grimes), the trial court, in granting KKI's motion for
summary judgment, stated:
|||"Whether or not there is a duty, the Court has to look at several
factors. . . .  . . . The Court does not find that there is a contract
as a matter of law . . . . The Court does not find the necessary elements
of a contract, that is mutual assent, offer, acceptance, and consideration,
so as to find a binding legal agreement by and between the parties.
||| . . . The Court does not so find a special relationship to exist in
connection with the relationship between Kennedy Krieger Institute and the
plaintiff and minor plaintiff . . . . I do not find that there is a special
relationship as at least expressed by our courts of appeal so as to justify
a duty owed by Defendant Kennedy Krieger to the plaintiff.
|||. . . The Court does not so find that a duty was created as a matter of
law by the statute."
|||In case No.129 (Higgins), KKI argued "plaintiff cannot prove that
Kennedy Krieger owed any duty to the plaintiff in this case that would arise
to civil liability." In granting KKI's motion for summary judgment,
the trial court stated:
|||"On the first instance, I see no duty at all on the part of KKI to
inspect or test this premises or to test the individual.
|||KKI was sort of an institutional volunteer in the community. Coming in
to collect dust and blood samples, the next thing you know they get sued
and I think that there is absolutely no duty on the part of KKI simply because
it came in to then assume a higher standard of . . . [responsibility] in
respect to these facts.
|||KKI was not the owner of the property, not an agent for the owner, it
didn't [accept] other properties from the landlord. It did not prefer the
properties to the landlord.
|||There is no basis to suggest that KKI was anything more than an institutional
volunteer in that community. . . . It certainly cannot be raised by virtue
of a consent form to take a blood test. It cannot be raised to the level
of a standard of duty under the law." [Emphasis added.]
|||On appeal, appellants seek review of the circuit courts' decisions granting
KKI's respective summary judgment motions. They contend, contrary to the
trial courts' findings, that KKI owed a duty to warn appellants of the presence
of lead-based paint and dust because: (1) a "special relationship"
existed between the parties; (2) of the contractual duty created by the
consent agreement; (3) the danger was foreseeable; and (4) a Federal regulation
exists, which created such a duty. Specifically, they contend that KKI had
an affirmative duty to give appellants complete and accurate information
concerning the risks and hazards of participating in the study - to include
the XRF results and the Cyclone vacuum results.
|||A. Standard of Review
|||We resolve these disputes in the context of the trial court's granting
of the appellee's motions for summary judgment in the two distinct cases.
The threshold issues before this Court are whether, in the two cases presented,
appellee, KKI, was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on the
basis that no contract existed and that there is inherently no duty owed
to a research subject by a researcher. Perhaps even more important is the
ancillary issue of whether a parent in Maryland, under the law of this State,
can legally consent to placing a child in a nontherapeutic research study
that carries with it any risk of harm to the health of the child. We shall
resolve all of these primary issues.
|||"In reviewing a grant of a summary judgment, we are first concerned
with whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists" and then whether
the movant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Williams
v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 359 Md. 101, 113, 753 A.2d 41,
47 (2000); Hartford Ins. Co. v. Manor Inn of Bethesda, Inc., 335 Md. 135,
144, 642 A.2d 219, 224 (1994); Gross v. Sussex, Inc., 332 Md. 247, 255,
630 A.2d 1156, 1160 (1993); Beatty v. Trailmaster Prods., Inc., 330 Md.
726, 737, 625 A.2d 1005, 1011 (1993); Arnold Developer, Inc. v. Collins,
318 Md. 259, 262, 567 A.2d 949, 951 (1990); Bachmann v. Glazer & Glazer,
Inc., 316 Md. 405, 408, 559 A.2d 365, 366 (1989); King v. Bankerd, 303 Md.
98, 110-11, 492 A.2d 608, 614 (1985). "A material fact is a fact the
resolution of which will somehow affect the outcome of the case." King,
303 Md. at 111, 492 A.2d at 614 (citing Lynx, Inc. v. Ordinance Prods.,
Inc., 273 Md. 1, 327 A.2d 502, 509 (1974)). "[A] dispute as to facts
relating to grounds upon which the decision is not rested is not a dispute
with respect to a material fact and such dispute does not prevent the entry
of summary judgment." Salisbury Beauty Schs. v. State Bd. of Cosmetologists,
268 Md. 32, 40, 300 A.2d 367, 374 (1973).
|||This Court also has stated that "[t]he standard of review for a grant
of summary judgment is whether the trial court was legally correct."
Goodwich v. Sinai Hosp. of Baltimore, Inc., 343 Md. 185, 204, 680 A.2d 1067,
1076 (1996); see also Murphy v. Merzbacher, 346 Md. 525, 530-31, 697 A.2d
861, 864 (1997); Manor Inn, 335 Md. at 144, 642 A.2d at 224; Gross, 332
Md. at 255, 630 A.2d at 1160; Heat & Power Corp. v. Air Prods. &
Chems., Inc., 320 Md. 584, 592, 578 A.2d 1202, 1206 (1990). As we have said:
|||"Concerning summary judgment, Maryland Rule 2-501(e) provides: `The
court shall enter judgment in favor of or against the moving party if the
motion and response show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and that the party in whose favor judgment is entered is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.' In determining whether a party is entitled
to judgment under this rule, the court must view the facts, including all
inferences, in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Beard v.
American Agency, 314 Md. 235, 246, 550 A.2d 677 (1988); Kramer v. Bally's
Park Place, 311 Md. 387, 389, 535 A.2d 466 (1988); Liscombe v. Potomac Edison
Co., 303 Md. 619, 621-22, 495 A.2d 838 (1985). The trial court will not
determine any disputed facts, but rather makes a ruling as a matter of law.
Scroggins v. Dahne, 335 Md. 688, 691, 645 A.2d 1160 (1994); Southland Corp.
v. Griffith, 332 Md. 704, 712, 633 A.2d 84 (1993); Beatty v. Trailmaster,
330 Md. 726, 737, 625 A.2d 1005 (1993). The standard of appellate review,
therefore, is whether the trial court was legally correct. See, e.g., Southland,
supra, 332 Md. at 712, 633 A.2d 84." Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.
v. Lane, 338 Md. 34, 42-43, 656 A.2d 307, 311 (1995), overruled on other
grounds by Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Flippo, 348 Md. 680, 705
A.2d 1144 (1998); see also Dobbins v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm'n,
338 Md. 341, 344, 658 A.2d 675, 676-77 (1995).
|||As we said in Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70, 660 A.2d 447 (1995):
|||"In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, this Court must consider
the facts reflected in the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories
and affidavits in the light most favorable to the non-moving parties, the
plaintiffs. Even if it appears that the relevant facts are undisputed, `if
those facts are susceptible to inferences supporting the position of the
party opposing summary judgment, then a grant of summary judgment is improper.'"
Id. at 79, 660 A.2d at 452 (quoting Clea v. Mayor & City Council of
Baltimore, 312 Md. 662, 677, 541 A.2d 1303, 1310 (1988).
|||The purpose of the summary judgment procedure is not to try the case or
to decide the factual disputes, but to decide whether there is an issue
of fact, which is sufficiently material to be tried. See Goodwich, 343 Md.
at 205-06, 680 A.2d at 1077; Coffey v. Derby Steel Co., 291 Md. 241, 247,
434 A.2d 564, 567-68 (1981); Berkey v. Delia, 287 Md. 302, 304, 413 A.2d
170, 171 (1980). Thus, once the moving party has provided the court with
sufficient grounds for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must produce
sufficient evidence to the trial court that a genuine dispute to a material
fact exists. See, e.g., Hoffman Chevrolet, Inc. v. Washington County Nat'l
Sav. Bank, 297 Md. 691, 712, 467 A.2d 758, 769 (1983). With these considerations
in mind, we turn to the instant cases.
|||B. General Discussion
|||Initially, we note that we know of no law, nor have we been directed to
any applicable in Maryland courts, that provides that the parties to a scientific
study, because it is a scientific, health-related study, cannot be held
to have entered into special relationships with the subjects of the study
that can create duties, including duties, the breach of which may give rise
to negligence claims. We also are not aware of any general legal precept
that immunizes non-governmental "institutional volunteers" or
scientific researchers from the responsibility for the breaches of duties
arising in "special relationships." Moreover, we, at the very
least, hold that, under the particular circumstances testified to by the
parties, there are genuine disputes of material fact concerning whether
a special relationship existed between KKI and Ericka Grimes, as well as
between KKI and Ms. Higgins and Myron Higgins. Concerning this issue, the
granting of the summary judgment motions was clearly inappropriate. When
a "special relationship" can exist as a matter of law, the issue
of whether, given certain facts, a special relationship does exist, when
there is a dispute of material fact in that respect, is a decision for the
finder of fact, not the trial judge. We shall hold initially that the very
nature of nontherapeutic scientific research on human subjects can, and
normally will, create special relationships out of which duties arise. Since
World War II the specialness or nature of such relationships has been frequently
of concern in and outside of the research community.
|||As a result of the atrocities performed in the name of science during
the Holocaust, and other happenings in the World War II era, what is now
known as The Nuremberg Code evolved. Of special interest to this Court,
the Nuremberg Code, at least in significant part, was the result of legal
thought and legal principles, as opposed to medical or scientific principles,
and thus should be the preferred standard for assessing the legality of
scientific research on human subjects. Under it, duties to research subjects
|||"Following the Doctors' Trial (the `Medical Case'), which included
charges of conducting lethal studies of the effects of high altitude and
extreme cold, the action of poisons, and the response to various inducted
infections, the court issued `The Nuremberg Code' as a summary of the legal
requirements for experimentation on humans. The Code requires that the informed,
voluntary, competent, and understanding consent of the research subjects
be obtained. Although this principle is placed first in the Code's ten points,
the other nine points must be satisfied before it is even appropriate to
ask the subject to consent.
|||The Nuremberg Code is the `most complete and authoritative statement of
the law of informed consent to human experimentation.' It is also `part
of international common law and may be applied, in both civil and criminal
cases, by state, federal and municipal courts in the United States.' However,
even though the courts in the United States may use the Nuremberg Code to
set criminal and civil standards of conduct, none have used it in a criminal
case and only a handful have even cited it in the civil context. Even where
the Nuremberg Code has been cited as authoritative, it has usually been
in dissent, and no United States court has ever awarded damages to an injured
experimental subject, or punished an experimenter, on the basis of a violation
of the Nuremberg Code. There have, however, been very few court decisions
involving human experimentation. It is therefore very difficult for a `common
law' human experimentation to develop. This absence of judicial precedent
makes codes, especially judicially-crafted codes like the Nuremberg Code,
all the more important." [Emphasis added.] Annas, Mengele's Birthmark:
the Nuremberg Code in United States Courts, 7 Journal of Contemporary Health
Law and Policy 17, at 22-23 (Spring, 1991), citing in part to J. Applleman,
Military Tribunals and International Crimes 141; 1 Trials of War Criminals
Before Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, 11-14
(1946-1949); 2 Trials of War Criminals Before Nuremberg Military Tribunals
under Control Council Law No. 10, 181-82. *fn31
|||". . . .Why wasn't the Nuremberg Code immediately adopted by United
States courts as setting the minimum standard of care for human experimentation?
One reason, perhaps, is that there was little opportunity. As remains true
today, almost no experiments resulted in lawsuits in the 1940's, 50's, and
60's. A second reason may be that the Nazi experiments were considered so
extreme as to be seen as irrelevant to the United States. This may explain
why our own use of prisoners, the institutionalized retarded, and the mentally
ill to test malaria treatments during World War II was generally hailed
as positive, making the war `everyone's war.' Likewise, in the late 1940's
and early 1950's, the testing of new polio vaccines on institutionalized
mentally retarded children was considered appropriate. Utilitarianism was
the ethic of the day. . . . Noting that the code applied primarily to the
type of outrageous nontherapeutic experiments conducted during the war,
physician groups tended to find the Code too `legalistic' and irrelevant
to their therapeutic experiments,' and set about to develop an alternative
code to guide medical researchers. The most successful and influential has
been the World Medical Association's (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki, . .
. [see infra]" Mengele's Birthmark, supra at 24-25.
|||In his conclusions the author noted:
|||"However, since American judges promulgated the [Nuremberg] Code
under both natural and international law standards, it is disturbing that
we have not taken it more seriously in areas where there is no question
that it has direct application. . . . We have yet to succeed in eradicating
our birthmark that impels us to trample human rights and welfare when either
society's welfare seems in jeopardy, or the promise of `progress' is dangled
before us. . . . Neither Alymer nor Mengele will be called to account in
a world that puts expediency over ethics, and exalts progress over human
rights. " Mengele's Birthmark, supra at 43.
|||Karin Morin in her article, The Standard of Disclosure in Human Subject
Experimentation,19 Journal of Legal Medicine 157, 158 (June 1998), after
discussing the history of informed consent as it developed in medical practice,
describes nontherapeutic experimental research, differentiating it from
therapeutic medical treatment. She stated that "any manipulation, observation,
or other study of a human being - or of anything related to that human being
that might subsequently result in manipulation of that human being - done
with the intent of developing new knowledge and which differs in any form
from customary medical (or other professional) practice." Id. at 166,
quoting from a paper by Robert Levine to the National Commission for the
Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. She
then states further: "Research is usually described in a formal protocol
that sets forth an objective and a set of procedures designed to reach that
objective." Id. at ___.
|||In respect to the difference between research involving treatment and
nontherapeutic research, she further notes that: ". . . practice represents
the utilization of knowledge, while research amounts to its creation. Because
experimentation takes place in the realm of the unknown, or at least the
`scientifically unproven,' several aspects distinguish it from treatment:
risks may be unforeseeable; assumptions are not supported by scientific
evidence and expertise is therefore more vulnerable than it is in clinical
practice; a subject's consent cannot be based on anticipated benefits; and
researchers and subjects may have conflicting interests." Id. at 213,
referring to an article by Delgado & Leskovac, Informed Consent in Human
Experimentation: Bridging the Gap Between Ethical Thought and Current Practice,
34 UCLA L. Review 67, 69 (1986).
|||Morin, in respect to nontherapeutic research, also postulates that:
|||"It is essential to recognize that society's interest in knowledge
may not coincide with an individual subject's interest; the individual subject
stands to gain nothing and lose everything, including his or her right of
self determination. . . .
|||. . . Some analysts contend that IRB review tends to focus exclusively
on consent requirements, rather than fully evaluating the merits of the
research. Yet, it is important to recognize that, even before consent becomes
an issue, the scientific merits and the acceptability of risks need to be
appraised. As at least one author has argued, this aspect of the review
may be jeopardized if members who have institutional allegiances are caught
between the desire to promote the interests of the institution and the need
to protect the subject.
|||C. Investigator-Subject Relationship
|||Another notable difference between treatment and experimentation lies
in the relationship between physician-patient and investigator-subject.
. . .
|||. . . Indeed, as discussed in relation to the notion of uncertainty, the
nature of the information held by the investigator can be very different
from that of the information held by a treating physician. . . .
|||Other than through the difference that relates to the disclosure of information,
the relationship between investigator and subject is unique in terms of
the purpose for which information is gathered. . . . Data are collected
to confirm or revoke a hypothesis, independently of the subject. Finally,
investigator's motivations differ from that of treating physicians. The
experiment is driven by the investigator's dedication to the advancement
of knowledge, and often by a commitment to those who have funded the research;
it is also driven by society's interest in future benefits that will flow
from medical discoveries. As one author remarks `the price of a bad outcome
is exacted from the individual who suffers the untoward reaction, whereas
the benefit of the breakthrough is available to society as a whole.'"
[Emphasis added.] Id. at ___.
|||In arguing that a fuller disclosure should be made when consent is sought
for nontherapeutic research, as opposed to therapeutic research, Morin notes:
|||"Furthermore, as long as courts continue to interpret the doctrine
of informed consent in experimentation as it applies in the context of treatment,
the uniqueness of the protection needed for human research subjects will
be overlooked. Failing to recognize that subjects who volunteer for the
sake of the advancement of science are differently situated from the patients
who stand to benefit from treatment results in an analysis that misconceives
the purpose of disclosure. Beyond informing the patient as to means available
to treat him or her, a subject must become a voluntary and willing participant
in an endeavor that may yield no direct benefit to him or her, or worse,
that may cause harm." Id. at 216-21 (citing numerous sources).
|||Just recently the research community has been subjected to question as
a result of genetic experimentation on a Pennsylvania citizen. Jesse Gelsinger
consented to participate in a research project at the University of Pennsylvania's
Institute of Human Gene Therapy. After Gelsinger's death, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ordered a halt to eight human gene therapy experiments
at the Institute. Additionally, other similar projects were halted elsewhere.
The FDA took the action after a "discovery of serious problems in the
Institute's informed consent procedures and, more generally, a lapse in
the researcher's ethical responsibilities to experimental subjects."
J. Barker, Human Experimentation and the Double Facelessness of a Merciless
Epoch, 25 New York University Review of Law and Social Change 603, 615 (1999).
|||Gelsinger had a different type of ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency
(OTC) disease, than that addressed by the research. His particular brand
of the disease was under control. There was no possibility that the research
being conducted would directly benefit him. It was thus, as to him, as it
was to the children in the case at bar, nontherapeutic; a way to study the
affects on the subjects (in the present case, the children) in order to
measure the success of the experiment. In Gelsinger's case, the research
was to test the efficiency of disease vectors. In other words, weakened
adenovirus (common-cold viruses) were used to deliver trillions of particles
of a particular OTC gene into his artery and thus to his liver. Gelsinger
experienced a massive and fatal immune system reaction to the introduction
of the common-cold virus.
|||There were problems with the extent of the informed consent there obtained.
Barker noted that:
|||"Is this a case of rogue experimenters giving a bad name to all genetic
research? Not at all. The program in Philadelphia is (or at least was) one
of the most prestigious in the world and the researchers there were first
rate. Rather, the problems with that program are indicative of systemic
problems with genetic research and informed consent as a protection of the
autonomy of research subjects. . . .
|||Why are there such serious problems with informed consent in some of these
trials, and why is there almost total noncompliance with regulations concerning
serious side effects? The answers to these questions are related. Informed
consent has suffered from pressure to get results-as quickly as possible.
. . . Informed consent procedures, properly followed, are troublesome, time-consuming,
costly, and may even threaten proprietary information valuable to the biotech
companies. The ethical face of the research subject may be obscured by such
|||. . . Researchers, under competitive pressure and also financial pressure
from corporate backers, operate under a paternalistic approach to research
subjects, asserting professional expertise and arguing experimental necessity
while minimizing the right to self-determination - a key aspect of the exercise
of autonomy - of their subjects. The result is a greater or lesser degree
of ethical effacement." Id. at __. *fn32
|||Because of the way the cases sub judice have arrived, as appeals from
the granting of summary judgments, there is no complete record of the specific
compensation of the researchers involved. Although the project was funded
by the EPA, at the request of KKI the EPA has declined to furnish such information
to the attorney for one of the parties, who requested it under the federal
Freedom of Information Act. Whether the research's character as a co-sponsored
state project opens the records under the Maryland Public Information Act
has apparently not been considered. Neither is there in the record any development
of what pressures, if any, were exerted in respect to the researchers obtaining
the consents of the parents and conducting the experiment. Nor, for the
same reason, is there a sufficient indication as to the extent to which
the Institute has joined with commercial interests, if it has, for the purposes
of profit, that might potentially impact upon the researcher's motivations
and potential conflicts of interest - motivations that generally are assumed,
in the cases of prestigious entities such as John Hopkins University, to
be for the public good rather then a search for profit.
|||We do note that the institution involved, the respondent here, like the
Wendell Johnson Speech and Hearing Center, is a highly respected entity,
considered to be a leader in the development of treatments, and treatment
itself, for children infected with lead poisoning. With reasonable assurance,
we can note that its reputation alone might normally suggest that there
was no realization or understanding on the Institute's part that the protocols
of the experiment were questionable, except for the letter from the IRB
requesting that the researchers mischaracterize the study.
|||We shall further address both the factual and legal bases for the findings
of the trial courts, holding, ultimately, that the respective courts erred
in both respects.
|||It is important for us to remember that appellants allege that KKI was
negligent. Specifically, they allege that KKI, as a medical researcher,
owed a duty of care to them, as subjects in the research study, based on
the nature of the agreements between them and also based on the nature of
the relationship between the parties. They contend specifically that KKI
was negligent because KKI breached its duty to: (1) design a study that
did not involve placing children at unnecessary risk; (2) inform participants
in the study of results in a timely manner; and (3) to completely and accurately
inform participants in the research study of all the hazards and risks involved
in the study.
|||In order to establish a claim for negligence under Maryland law, a party
must prove four elements: "(1) that the defendant was under a duty
to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) that the defendant breached that
duty, (3) that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss[ *fn33
] and (4) that the loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant's
breach of the duty." (Emphasis added.) Rosenblatt v. Exxon, 335 Md.
58, 76, 642 A.2d 180, 188 (1994) (citing Faya v. Almaraz, 329 Md. 435, 448,
620 A.2d 327, 333 (1993) and Lamb v. Hopkins, 303 Md. 236, 241, 492 A.2d
1297, 1300 (1985)); see Brown v. Dermer, 357 Md. 344, 356, 744 A.2d 47,
54 (2000); Richwind Joint Venture 4 v. Brunson, 335 Md. 661, 670, 645 A.2d
1147, 1151 (1994); Manor Inn, 335 Md. at 147- 48, 642 A.2d at 225; Southland
Corp., 332 Md. 704, 712, 633 A.2d 84, 88 (1993). Because this is a review
of the granting of the two summary judgments based solely on the grounds
that there was no legal duty to protect the children, we are primarily concerned
with the first prong -whether KKI was under a duty to protect appellants
|||We noted in West Virginia Central Railroad Co. v. Fuller, 96 Md. 652,
666, 54 A. 669, 671 (1903):
|||"[T]here can be no negligence where there is no duty that is due;
for negligence is the breach of some duty that one person owes to another.
It is consequently relative and can have no existence apart from some duty
expressly or impliedly imposed. In every instance before negligence can
be predicated of a given act, back of the act must be sought and found a
duty to the individual complaining, the observance of which duty would have
averted or avoided the injury. . . . As the duty owed varies with circumstances
and with the relation to each other of the individuals concerned, so the
alleged negligence varies, and the act complained of never amounts to negligence
in law or in fact; if there has been no breach of duty." See Dermer,
357 Md. at 357, 744 A.2d at 54.
|||In Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 627-28, 510 A.2d 1078,
1083 (1986), we also analyzed this first element of whether a duty existed:
|||"`Duty' in negligence has been defined as `an obligation, to which
the law will give recognition and effect, to conform to a particular standard
of conduct toward another.' Prosser and Keeton [on Torts] § 53 [(W. Keeton
5th ed. 1984)]. There is no set formula for this determination. As Dean
Prosser noted, `duty is not sacrosanct in itself, but is only an expression
of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to
say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.' Id. In broad
terms, these policies include: `convenience of administration, capacity
of the parties to bear the loss, a policy of preventing future injuries,
[and] the moral blame attached to the wrongdoer. . . .' Id. As one court
suggested, there are a number of variables to be considered in determining
if a duty exists to another, such as:
|||the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that
the plaintiff suffered the injury, the closeness of the connection between
the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached
to the defendant's conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent
of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing
a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability,
cost and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved. Tarasoff v. Regents
of University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 434, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14, 22,
551 P.2d 334, 342 (1976).
|||`Perhaps among these the factor deemed most important is foreseeability.
See id. However, `foreseeability' must not be confused with `duty.' The
fact that a result may be foreseeable does not itself impose a duty in negligence
terms.'" [Some alterations in original.] See also Dermer, 357 Md. at
357, 744 A.2d at 54; Rosenblatt, 335 Md. at 76-77, 642 A.2d at 189.
|||With regard to the connection between the harm and the relationship between
the parties, we recently stated in Walpert, Smullian & Blumenthal, P.A.
v. Katz, 361 Md. 645, 658, 762 A.2d 582, 589 (2000) (quoting Jacques v.
First Nat'l Bank, 307 Md. 527, 534-35, 515 A.2d 756, 759-60 (1986)):
|||"Where the failure to exercise due care creates a risk of economic
loss only, courts have generally required an intimate nexus between the
parties as a condition to the imposition of tort liability. This intimate
nexus is satisfied by contractual privity or its equivalent. By contrast,
where the risk created is one of personal injury, no such direct relationship
need be shown, and the principal determinant of duty becomes foreseeability."
|||Furthermore, as we stated in Almaraz, 329 Md. at 449, 620 A.2d at 333,
"legal scholars have long agreed that the seriousness of potential
harm, as well as its probability, contributes to a duty to prevent it."
As we emphasized in Bobo v. State, 346 Md. 706, 714-15, 697 A.2d 1371, 1375-76
|||"Two of the relevant factors to consider in determining whether such
a duty should be recognized are `the nature of the harm likely to result
from a failure to exercise due care, and the relationship that exists between
the parties.' Jacques v. First Nat'l Bank, 307 Md. 527, 534, 515 A.2d 756,
759 (1986) . . . . Such a relationship may be established in a number of
ways: (1) by statute or rule; (2) by contractual or other private relationship;
or (3) indirectly or impliedly by virtue of the relationship between the
tortfeasor and a third party." [Some citations omitted.]
|||The relationship that existed between KKI and both sets of appellants
in the case at bar was that of medical researcher and research study subject.
Though not expressly recognized in the Maryland Code or in our prior cases
as a type of relationship which creates a duty of care, evidence in the
record suggests that such a relationship involving a duty or duties would
ordinarily exist, and certainly could exist, based on the facts and circumstances
of each of these individual cases. Once we have determined that the facts
and circumstances of the present cases, considered in a light most favorable
to the nonmoving parties, are susceptible to inferences supporting the position
of the party opposing summary judgment, we are mandated to hold that the
granting of summary judgment in the lower court was improper. In addition
to the trial courts' erroneous conclusions on the law, the facts and circumstances
of both of these cases are susceptible to inferences that a special relationship
imposing a duty or duties was created in the arrangements in the cases sub
judice, and, ordinarily, could be created in similar research programs involving
|||IV. The Special Relationships
|||A. The Consent Agreement Contract
|||Both sets of appellants signed a similar Consent Form prepared by KKI
in which KKI expressly promised to: (1) financially compensate (however
minimally) appellants for their participation in the study; *fn34
(2) collect lead dust samples from appellants' homes, analyze the samples,
discuss the results with appellants, and discuss steps that could be taken,
which could reduce exposure to lead; and (3) collect blood samples from
children in the household and provide appellants with the results of the
blood tests. In return, appellants agreed to participate in the study, by:
(1) allowing KKI into appellants' homes to collect dust samples; (2) periodically
filling out questionnaires; and (3) allowing the children's blood to be
drawn, tested, and utilized in the study. If consent agreements contain
such provisions, and the trial court did not find otherwise, and we hold
from our own examination of the record that such provisions were so contained,
mutual assent, offer, acceptance , and consideration existed, all of which
created contractual relationships imposing duties by reason of the consent
agreement themselves (as well, as we discuss elsewhere, by the very nature
of such relationships).
|||By having appellants sign this Consent Form, both KKI and appellants expressly
made representations, which, in our view, created a bilateral contract between
the parties. At the very least, it suggests that appellants were agreeing
with KKI to participate in the research study with the expectation that
they would be compensated, albeit, more or less, minimally, be informed
of all the information necessary for the subject to freely choose whether
to participate, and continue to participate, and receive promptly any information
that might bear on their willingness to continue to participate in the study.
This includes full, detailed, prompt, and continuing warnings as to all
the potential risks and hazards inherent in the research or that arise during
the research. KKI, in return, was getting the children to move into the
houses and/or to remain there over time, and was given the right to test
the children's blood for lead. As consideration to KKI, it got access to
the houses and to the blood of children that had been encouraged to live
in a "risk" environment. In other words, KKI received a measuring
tool - the children's blood. Considerations existed, mainly money, food
coupons, trinkets, bilateral promises, blood to be tested in order to measure
success. "Informed consent" of the type used here, which imposes
obligation and confers consideration on both researcher and subject (in
these cases, the parents of the subjects) may differ from the more one-sided
"informed consent" normally used in actual medical practice. Researcher/subject
consent in nontherapeutic research can, and in this case did, create a contract.
|||B. The Sufficiency of the Consent Form
|||The consent form did not directly inform the parents of the fact that
it was contemplated that some of the children might ingest lead dust particles,
and that one of the reasons the blood of the children was to be tested was
to evaluate how effective the various abatement measures were.
|||A reasonable parent would expect to be clearly informed that it was at
least contemplated that her child would ingest lead dust particles, and
that the degree to which lead dust contaminated the child's blood would
be used as one of the ways in which the success of the experiment would
be measured. The fact that if such information was furnished, it might be
difficult to obtain human subjects for the research, does not affect the
need to supply the information, or alter the ethics of failing to provide
such information. A human subject is entitled to all material information.
The respective parent should also have been clearly informed that in order
for the measurements to be most helpful, the child needed to stay in the
house until the conclusion of the study. Whether assessed by a subjective
or an objective standard, the children, or their surrogates, should have
been additionally informed that the researchers anticipated that, as a result
of the experiment, it was possible that there might be some accumulation
of lead in the blood of the children. The "informed" consent was
not valid because full material information was not furnished to the subjects
or their parents.
|||C. Special Relationship
|||In Case Number 128, Ms. Hughes signed a Consent Form in which KKI agreed
to provide her with "specific blood-lead results" and discuss
with her "a summary of house test results and steps that [she] could
take to reduce any risks of exposure." She contends that this agreement
between the parties gave rise to a duty owed by KKI to provide her with
that information in a timely manner. She signed the Consent Form on March
10, 1993. The project began almost simultaneously. KKI collected dust samples
in the Monroe Street property on March 9, 1993, August 23, 1993, March 9,
1994, September 19, 1994, April 18, 1995, and November 13, 1995. The March
9, 1993 dust testing revealed what the researchers referred to as "hot
spots," where the level of lead was "higher than might be found
in a completely renovated house." As we indicated, supra, this information
was not furnished to Ms. Hughes until December 16, 1993, more than nine
months after the samples had been collected and not until after Ericka Grimes's
blood was found to contain elevated levels of lead. She contends that not
only did KKI have a duty to report such information in a timely manner but
that it breached this duty by delaying to such a time that her daughter
was allowed to contract lead poisoning. Looking at the relevant facts of
Case Number 128, they are susceptible to inferences supporting the position
of appellant, Ericka Grimes, and, moreover, that, if true, would create
a "special relationship" out of which duties would be created.
Therefore, for this reason alone, the grant of summary judgment was improper.
|||In Case Number 129, Ms. Higgins also signed a Consent Form in which KKI
agreed to provide her with "specific blood-lead results" in respect
to her child and to discuss with her "a summary of house test results
and steps that [she] could take to reduce any risks of exposure." She
contends that this agreement between the parties gave rise to a duty owed
by KKI to provide her with complete and accurate information. Pursuant to
the plans of the research study, KKI collected dust samples in the Federal
Street property on May 17, 1994, July 25, 1994, and November 3, 1994. KKI
informed Ms. Higgins of the dust sample results by letters dated June 24,
1994, September 14, 1994, and February 7, 1995, respectively. Although KKI
had recorded high levels of lead concentration in the dust samples collected
by the Cyclone vacuum during the May 17, 1994 visit, KKI failed to disclose
this information to Ms. Higgins in the letter dated June 24, 1994. Instead,
KKI relied on the results obtained from the dust wipe samples collected
and informed her that there was no area in her house where the lead level
was higher than what might have been found in a completely renovated house.
|||Ms. Higgins contends that KKI knew of the presence of high levels of lead-based
paint and dust in the Federal Street property as early as December of 1993,
that even after Level II intervention such high levels still existed as
of June of 1994, and that it was not until she received a letter dated September
14, 1994 that KKI specifically informed Ms. Higgins of the fact that her
house had elevated lead levels. This was after her child, Myron, was diagnosed
with elevated levels of lead in his blood.
|||Specifically, Ms. Higgins contends that KKI was negligent in its failure
to inform her of its knowledge of the high levels of lead dust recorded
by both XRF testing in December 1993 and from the samples collected via
the Cyclone vacuum in May 1994 and that this withholding of information
combined with KKI's letter dated June 24, 1993, informing her solely of
the lower results of the samples collected by dust wipe methodology, was
misleading to her as a participant in the study. KKI does not argue the
facts as appellant presents them. Instead, it argues that no duty to inform
existed because although the Cyclone readings were high, they were not an
indication of a potential hazard because the clearance levels were based
on dust wipe methodology and the dust wipe results were not above the clearance
levels. Looking at the relevant facts of Case Number 129, they are susceptible
to inferences supporting the position of appellant, Ms. Higgins. Accordingly,
for this reason alone, the grant of summary judgment was improper.
|||As we indicated earlier, the trial courts appear to have held that special
relationships out of which duties arise cannot be created by the relationship
between researchers and the subjects of the research. While in some rare
cases that may be correct, it is not correct when researchers recruit people,
especially children whose consent is furnished indirectly, to participate
in nontherapeutic procedures that are potentially hazardous, dangerous,
or deleterious to their health. As opposed to compilation of already extant
statistics for purposes of studying human health matters, the creation of
study conditions or protocols or participation in the recruitment of otherwise
healthy subjects to interact with already existing, or potentially existing,
hazardous conditions, or both, for the purpose of creating statistics from
which scientific hypotheses can be supported, would normally warrant or
create such special relationships as a matter of law.
|||It is of little moment that an entity is an institutional volunteer in
a community. If otherwise, the legitimacy of the claim to noble purpose
would always depend upon the particular institution and the particular community
it is serving in a given case. As we have indicated, history is replete
with claims of noble purpose for institutions and institutional volunteers
in a wide variety of communities.
|||Institutional volunteers may intend to do good or, as history has proven,
even to do evil and may do evil or good depending on the institution and
the community they serve. Whether an institutional volunteer *fn36
in a particular community should be granted exceptions from the application
of law is a matter that should be scrutinized closely by an appropriate
public policy maker. Generally, but not always, the legislative branch is
appropriately the best first forum to consider exceptions to the tort laws
of this State - even then it should consider all ramifications of the policy
- especially considering the general vulnerability of subjects of such studies
- in this case, small children. In the absence of the exercise of legislative
policymaking, we hold that special relationships, out of which duties arise,
the breach of which can constitute negligence, can result from the relationships
between researcher and research subjects.
|||D. The Federal Regulations
|||A duty may be prescribed by a statute, or a special relationship creating
duties may arise from the requirement for compliance with statutory provisions.
Although there is no duty of which we are aware prescribed by the Maryland
Code in respect to scientific research of the nature here present, federal
regulations have been enacted that impose standards of care that attach
to federally funded or sponsored research projects that use human subjects.
See 45 C.F.R. pt 46 (2000). 45 C.F.R. Article 46, Subpart A, is entitled
"Basic HHS[ *fn37 ] Policy for
Protection of Human Research Subjects" and Subpart D of the regulation
is entitled "Additional Protections for Children Involved as Subjects
in Research." 45 C.F.R. § 46.101(a) (2000) provides:
|||(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this policy applies
to all research involving human subjects conducted, supported or otherwise
subject to regulation by any federal department or agency which takes appropriate
administrative action to make the policy applicable to such research. This
includes research conducted by federal civilian employees or military personnel,
except that each department or agency head may adopt such procedural modifications
as may be appropriate from an administrative standpoint. It also includes
research conducted, supported, or otherwise subject to regulation by the
federal government outside the United States." [Emphasis added.]
|||As we discussed, supra, this study was funded, and co-sponsored, by the
EPA and presumably was therefore subject to these federal conditions. These
conditions, if appropriate administrative action has been taken, require
fully informed consent in any research using human subjects conducted, supported,
or otherwise subject to any level of control or funding by any federal department
or agency. 45 C.F.R. 46.116 provides in relevant part:
|||"Sec. 46.116 General requirements for informed consent.
|||Except as provided elsewhere in this policy, no investigator may involve
a human being as a subject in research covered by this policy unless the
investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the
subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. An investigator
shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective
subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether
or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue
influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative
shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative.
No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory
language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive
or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases or appears
to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution or its agents
from liability for negligence.
|||(a) Basic elements of informed consent. Except as provided in paragraph
(c) or (d) of this section, in seeking informed consent the following information
shall be provided to each subject:
|||(2) A description of any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts to
|||(4) A disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures or courses of treatment,
if any, that might be advantageous to the subject;
|||(6) For research involving more than minimal risk, an explanation as to
whether any compensation and an explanation as to whether any medical treatments
are available if injury occurs and, if so, what they consist of, or where
further information may be obtained;
|||(b) Additional elements of informed consent. When appropriate, one or
more of the following elements of information shall also be provided to
|||(1) A statement that the particular treatment or procedure may involve
risks to the subject (or to the embryo or fetus, if the subject is or may
become pregnant) which are currently unforeseeable;
|||(5) A statement that significant new findings developed during the course
of the research which may relate to the subject's willingness to continue
participation will be provided to the subject . . . ." [Emphasis added.]
|||Subpart D of the regulation concerns children involved as subjects in
research. 45 C.F.R. § 46.407 therefore additionally provides:
|||"Sec. 46.407 Research not otherwise approvable which presents an
opportunity to understand, prevent, or alleviate a serious problem affecting
the health or welfare of children.
|||HHS will conduct or fund research that the IRB does not believe meets
the requirements of Sec. 46.404, Sec. 46.405, or Sec. 46.406 only if:
|||(a) The IRB finds that the research presents a reasonable opportunity
to further the understanding, prevention, or alleviation of a serious problem
affecting the health or welfare of children; and
|||(b) The Secretary,[ *fn38 ] after
consultation with a panel of experts in pertinent disciplines (for example:
science, medicine, education, ethics, law) and following opportunity for
public review and comment, has determined either:
|||(1) That the research in fact satisfies the conditions of Sec. 46.404,
Sec. 46.405, or Sec. 46.406, as applicable, or (2) The following:
|||(i) The research presents a reasonable opportunity to further the understanding,
prevention, or alleviation of a serious problem affecting the health or
welfare of children;
|||(ii) The research will be conducted in accordance with sound ethical principles;
|||(iii) Adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of children
and the permission of their parents or guardians, as set forth in Sec. 46.408."
|||These federal regulations, especially the requirement for adherence to
sound ethical principles, strike right at the heart of KKI's defense of
the granting of the Motions for Summary Judgment. Fully informed consent
is lacking in these cases. The research did not comply with the regulations.
There clearly was more than a minimal risk involved. Under the regulations,
children should not have been used for the purpose of measuring how much
lead they would accumulate in their blood while living in partially abated
houses to which they were recruited initially or encouraged to remain, because
of the study.
|||In the case of Whitlock v. Duke University, 637 F. Supp. 1463 (M.D. N.C.
1986), affirmed by, 829 F.2d 1340 (4th Cir. 1987), the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina decided that in determining
what duty a researcher owes to a subject of nontherapeutic experimentation,
it would analyze a duty consistent with 45 C.F.R. § 46.116. Id. at 1471.
That court held that a researcher has a duty to inform the subject of all
risks that are reasonably foreseeable. Whitlock involved a subject who suffered
organic brain damage from decompression experiments. The District Court
ultimately held (and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit) that although a heightened duty existed between a researcher and
an adult research participant requiring the researcher to disclose all foreseeable
risks, in Whitlock there was no evidence presented that the risk of organic
brain damage was foreseeable.
|||That result is clearly distinguishable from the present cases, where the
risks associated with exposing children to lead-based paint were not only
foreseeable, but were well known by KKI, and, in fact, it had to have been
reasonably foreseeable by KKI that the children's blood might be contaminated
by lead because the extent of contamination of the blood of the children
would, in significant part, be used to measure the effectiveness of the
various abatement methods. Moreover, in the present cases, the consent forms
did not directly inform the parents that it was possible, even contemplated,
that some level of lead, a harmful substance depending upon accumulation,
might contaminate the blood of the children.
|||Clearly, KKI, as a research institution, is required to obtain a human
participant's fully informed consent, using sound ethical principles. It
is clear from the wording of the applicable federal regulations that this
requirement of informed consent continues during the duration of the research
study and applies to new or changing risks. In this case, a special relationship
out of which duties might arise might be created by reason of the federally
imposed regulations. The question becomes whether this duty of informed
consent created by federal regulation, as a matter of state law, translates
into a duty of care arising out of the unique relationship that is researcher-subject,
as opposed to doctor-patient. We answer that question in the affirmative.
In this State, it may, depending on the facts, create such a duty.
|||Additionally, the Nuremberg Code, intended to be applied internationally,
and never expressly rejected in this country, inherently and implicitly,
speaks strongly to the existence of special relationships imposing ethical
duties on researchers who conduct nontherapeutic experiments on human subjects.
The Nuremberg Code specifically requires researches to make known to human
subjects of research "all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to
be expected, and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly
come from his participation in the experiment." The breach of obligations
imposed on researchers by the Nuremberg Code, might well support actions
sounding in negligence in cases such as those at issue here. We reiterate
as well that, given the facts and circumstances of both of these cases,
there were, at the very least, genuine disputes of material facts concerning
the relationship and duties of the parties, and compliance with the regulations.
|||V. The Ethical Appropriateness of the Research
|||The World Medical Association in its Declaration of Helsinki *fn39
included a code of ethics for investigative researchers and was an attempt
by the medical community to establish its own set of rules for conducting
research on human subjects. The Declaration states in relevant part:
|||"III. Nontherapeutic biomedical research involving human subjects
(Nonclinical biomedical research)
|||1. In the purely scientific application of medical research carried out
on a human being, it is the duty of the physician to remain the protector
of the life and health of that person on whom biomedical research is being
|||2. The subjects should be volunteers - either healthy persons or patients
for whom the experimental design is not related to the patient's illness.
|||3. The investigator or the investigating team should discontinue the research
if in his/her or their judgment it may, if continued, be harmful to the
|||4. In research on man, the interest of science and society should never
take precedence over considerations related to the well being of the subject."
|||Adopted in Declaration of Helsinki, World Medical Assembly (WMA) 18th
Assembly (June 1964), amended by 29th WMA Tokyo, Japan (October, 1975),
35th WMA Venice, Italy (October 1983), and the 41st WMA Hong Kong (September
|||The determination of whether a duty exists under Maryland law is the ultimate
function of various policy considerations as adopted by either the Legislature,
or, if it has not spoken, as it has not in respect to this situation, by
Maryland courts. In our view, otherwise healthy children should not be the
subjects of nontherapeutic experimentation or research that has the potential
to be harmful to the child. It is, first and foremost, the responsibility
of the researcher and the research entity to see to the harmlessness of
such nontherapeutic research. Consent of parents can never relieve the researcher
of this duty. We do not feel that it serves proper public policy concerns
to permit children to be placed in situations of potential harm, during
nontherapeutic procedures, even if parents, or other surrogates, consent.
Under these types of circumstances, even where consent is given, albeit
inappropriately, policy considerations suggest that there remains a special
relationship between researchers and participants to the research study,
which imposes a duty of care. This is entirely consistent with the principles
found in the Nuremberg Code.
|||Researchers cannot ever be permitted to completely immunize themselves
by reliance on consents, especially when the information furnished to the
subject, or the party consenting, is incomplete in a material respect. A
researcher's duty is not created by, or extinguished by, the consent of
a research subject or by IRB approval. The duty to a vulnerable research
subject is independent of consent, although the obtaining of consent is
one of the duties a researcher must perform. All of this is especially so
when the subjects of research are children. Such legal duties, and legal
protections, might additionally be warranted because of the likely conflict
of interest between the goal of the research experimenter and the health
of the human subject, especially, but not exclusively, when such research
is commercialized. There is always a potential substantial conflict of interest
on the part of researchers as between them and the human subjects used in
their research. If participants in the study withdraw from the research
study prior to its completion, then the results of the study could be rendered
meaningless. There is thus an inherent reason for not conveying information
to subjects as it arises, that might cause the subjects to leave the research
project. That conflict dictates a stronger reason for full and continuous
|||In research, the study participant's "well-being is subordinated
to the dictates of a research protocol designed to advance knowledge for
the sake of future patients." Jay Katz, Human Experimentation and Human
Rights, 38 St. Louis L.J. 7, 8 (1993). In a recent report, the National
Bioethics Advisory Commission recognized that this conflict between pursuit
of scientific knowledge and the well-being of research participants requires
some oversight of scientific investigators: "However noble the investigator's
intentions, when research involves human participants, the uncertainties
inherent in any research study raise the prospect of unanticipated harm.
In designing a research study an investigator must focus on finding or creating
situations in which one can test important scientific hypotheses. At the
same time, no matter how important the research questions, it is not ethical
to use human participants without appropriate protections. Thus, there can
be a conflict between the need to test hypotheses and the requirement to
respect and protect individuals who participate in research. This conflict
and the resulting tension that can arise within the research enterprise
suggest a need for guidance and oversight." National Bioethics Advisory
Commission, Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants,
2-3 (Dec. 19, 2000) (emphasis added). When human subjects are used in scientific
research, the rights of the human subjects are afforded the protection of
the courts when such subjects seek redress for any wrongs committed.
|||A special relationship giving rise to duties, the breach of which might
constitute negligence, might also arise because, generally, the investigators
are in a better position to anticipate, discover, and understand the potential
risks to the health of their subjects. Practical inequalities exist between
researchers, who have superior knowledge, and participants "who are
often poorly placed to protect themselves from risk." Id. at 3. "[G]iven
the gap in knowledge between investigators and participants and the inherent
conflict of interest faced by investigators, participants cannot and should
not be solely responsible for their own protection." Id. at 3-4.
|||This duty requires the protection of the research subjects from unreasonable
harm and requires the researcher to completely and promptly inform the subjects
of potential hazards existing from time to time because of the profound
trust that participants place in investigators, institutions, and the research
enterprise as a whole to protect them from harm. "Faced with seemingly
knowledgeable and prestigious investigators engaged in a noble pursuit,
participants may simply assume that research is socially important or of
benefit to them individually; they may not be aware that participation could
be harmful to their interests." Id.
|||As is evident from the cases discussed in this opinion, abuses with regard
to the protection of human subjects in experimental research still occur
in this country. This is also recognized by the federal government's attempts
to insure the protections of human research subjects. See Donna Shalala,
Ph.D. Protecting Research Subjects - What Must Be Done, 343 New England
Journal of Medicine 11 (September 14, 2000).
|||The purpose of the study in the case at bar was, in the words of Dr. Mark
R. Farfel Sc.D., Director of KKI's Lead Abatement Department "to document
the longevity of various lead base paint abatement strategies, factored
in terms of reducing lead exposure in house dust and the children's blood
lead levels." In other words, the purpose of the experiment was to
determine whether there was a less expensive way than full abatement that
would be cost-effective in reducing lead poisoning in children from a lower
economic background. The study, by its design, placed and/or retained children
in areas where they might come into contact with elevated levels of lead
dust. Clearly, KKI contemplated that at least some of the children would
develop elevated blood lead levels while participating in the study. At
45 CFR 46.111 Criteria for IRB approval of research, the regulations require
IRBs to encourage the safety aspects of research rather than encouraging
noncompliance with regulations: "(b) when some or all of the subjects
. . . such as children . . ., are economically or educationally disadvantaged
persons additional safeguards have been included . . . to protect the rights
and welfare of these subjects." (Emphasis added.)
|||While we acknowledge that foreseeability does not necessarily create a
duty, we recognize that potential harm to the children participants of this
study was both foreseeable and potentially extreme. A "special relationship"
also exists in circumstances where such experiments are conducted.
|||VI. Parental Consent for Children to Be Subjects of Potentially Hazardous
|||The issue of whether a parent can consent to the participation of her
or his child in a nontherapeutic health-related study that is known to be
potentially hazardous to the health of the child raises serious questions
with profound moral and ethical implications. What right does a parent have
to knowingly expose a child not in need of therapy to health risks or otherwise
knowingly place a child in danger, even if it can be argued it is for the
greater good? The issue in these specific contested cases does not relate
primarily to the authority of the parent, but to the procedures of KKI and
similar entities that may be involved in such health-related studies. The
issue of the parents' right to consent on behalf of the children has not
been fully presented in either of these cases, but should be of concern
not only to lawyers and judges, but to moralists, ethicists, and others.
The consenting parents in the contested cases at bar were not the subjects
of the experiment; the children were. Additionally, this practice presents
the potential problems of children initiating actions in their own names
upon reaching majority, if indeed, they have been damaged as a result of
being used as guinea pigs in nontherapeutic scientific research. Children,
it should be noted, are not in our society the equivalent of rats, hamsters,
monkeys, and the like. Because of the overriding importance of this matter
and this Court's interest in the welfare of children - we shall address
|||Most of the relatively few cases in the area of the ethics of protocols
of various research projects involving children have merely assumed that
a parent can give informed consent for the participation of their children
in nontherapeutic research. The single case in which the issue has been
addressed, and resolved, a case with which we agree, will be discussed further,
|||It is not in the best interest of a specific child, in a nontherapeutic
research project, to be placed in a research environment, which might possibly
be, or which proves to be, hazardous to the health of the child. We have
long stressed that the "best interests of the child" is the overriding
concern of this Court in matters relating to children. Whatever the interests
of a parent, and whatever the interests of the general public in fostering
research that might, according to a researcher's hypothesis, be for the
good of all children, this Court's concern for the particular child and
particular case, over-arches all other interests. It is, simply, and we
hope, succinctly put, not in the best interest of any healthy child to be
intentionally put in a nontherapeutic situation where his or her health
may be impaired, in order to test methods that may ultimately benefit all
|||To think otherwise, to turn over human and legal ethical concerns solely
to the scientific community, is to risk embarking on slippery slopes, that
all to often in the past, here and elsewhere, have resulted in practices
we, or any community, should be ever unwilling to accept.
|||We have little doubt that the general motives of all concerned in these
contested cases were, for the most part, proper, albeit in our view not
well thought out. The protocols of the research, those of which we have
been made aware, were, in any event, unacceptable in a legal context. One
simply does not expose otherwise healthy children, incapable of personal
assent (consent), to a nontherapeutic research environment that is known
at the inception of the research, might cause the children to ingest lead
dust. It is especially troublesome, when a measurement of the success of
the research experiment is, in significant respect, to be determined by
the extent to which the blood of the children absorbs, and is contaminated
by, a substance that the researcher knows can, in sufficient amounts, whether
solely from the research environment or cumulative from all sources, cause
serious and long term adverse health effects. Such a practice is not legally
|||In Hart v. Brown, 29 Conn. Supp. 368, 289 A.2d 386 (1972), that court
was faced, prospectively, with whether to approve the transplant of a kidney
from one seven-year-old identical twin to the other twin. The medical information
presented to the court indicated that without the transplant the recipient
twin would have to undergo an extensive period of dialysis treatment with
the expectation of only a 50% chance that she could survive that treatment
for more than five years; the donor twin was expected to live a normal and
productive life with one kidney. There were severe rejection problems with
the transplant of a kidney from the parents that would have subjected the
recipient twin to the possible side effects of immuno-suppressive drugs.
|||The parents brought an action in behalf of the recipient twin against
the doctor and the hospital that had refused to perform the operation absent
a court order that the parents or a guardian had the right to consent to
the operation. The action, therefore, sought a declaratory judgment concerning
whether the parents or a guardian ad litem had the right to consent to the
transplant in behalf of the donor twin.
|||The court first appointed as guardian ad litems an attorney to represent
the donor twin, and another person to represent the recipient twin. After
citing three unreported cases from the State of Massachusetts, and the case
of Strunk v. Strunk, 445 S.W.2d 145 (Ky. 1969), the Connecticut court adopted
the "doctrine of substituted judgment." It upheld the giving of
the consent of the parents, but only after noting the extensive process
that the parties and the court had undertaken. The court noted:
|||"One of the legal problems in this matter presents the balancing
of the rights of the natural parents and the rights of the minor children
-more directly, the rights of the donor child. Because of the unusual circumstances
of this case and the fact of great medical progress in this field, it would
appear that the natural parents would be able to substitute their consent
for that of their minor children after a close, independent and objective
investigation of their motivation and reasoning. This has been accomplished
in this matter by the participation of a clergyman, the defendant physicians,
and attorney guardian ad litem for the donor, the guardian ad litem for
the donee, and, indeed, this court itself.
|||A further question before this court is whether it should abandon the
donee to a brief medically complicated life and eventual death or permit
the natural parents to take some action based on reason and medical probability
in order to keep both children alive. . . .
|||There is authority in our American jurisdiction that nontherapeutic operations
can be legally permitted on a minor as long as the parents or other guardians
consent to the procedure."
|||The court then cited the cases of Strunk v. Strunk, supra; Bonner v. Moran,
75 U.S. App. D.C. 156, 126 F.2d 121 (1941) and the unreported Massachusetts
|||Bonner was an unusual case that involved the grafting of skin from a minor
donor cousin to a badly burned donee cousin. In that case, the court did
not answer whether a parent, or other appropriate relative or guardian,
could give consent for a nontherapeutic (as to the donor cousin) procedure.
The issue was whether their consent was necessary under the circumstances,
in that the donor cousin had apparently donated the skin without any express
consent (and may have already done so when an aunt improperly consented
as a surrogate). The trial court found that the minor cousin was sufficiently
mature so as to be able to assent to the procedure, thus avoiding a determination
as to whether a parent, or appropriate relative, could have given surrogated
consent. The trial court gave a "mature minor" instruction to
the jury. *fn40 The trial court's decision
was ultimately overturned. The appellate court, reversing, stated:
|||"We are constrained, therefore, to feel that the court below, in
the circumstances we have outlined, should have instructed that the consent
of the parent was necessary . . . . But by his own testimony, it clearly
appears that he [the physician] failed to explain, even to the infant, the
nature or extent of the proposed first operation." Bonner, 75 U.S.
Ap. D.C. at ___, 126 F.2d at ___.
|||As is clear, that court did not say that parental consent would always
be sufficient itself, only that it was a necessary ingredient in the equation.
|||In the Strunk case, the proposed donor was a mentally incompetent adult.
Her parents sought permission of the court to consent to having one of the
incompetent adult's kidneys transplanted to her twenty-six-year-old brother.
The court granted permission to the parents, adopting the "doctrine
of substituted judgment."
|||What is of primary importance to be gleaned in the Hart and Strunk cases
is not that the parents or guardians consented to the procedures, but that
they first sought permission of the courts, and received that permission,
before consenting to a nontherapeutic procedure in respect to some of their
minor children, but that was therapeutic to other of their children.
|||In the case sub judice, no impartial judicial review or oversight was
sought by the researchers or by the parents. Additionally, in spite of the
IRB's improper attempt to manufacture a therapeutic value, there was absolutely
no such value of the research in respect to the minor subjects used to measure
the effectiveness of the study. In the absence of a requirement for judicial
review, in such a circumstance, the researchers, and their scientific based
review boards would be, if permitted, the sole judges of whether it is appropriate
to use children in nontherapeutic research of the nature here present, where
the success of an experiment is to be measured, in substantial part, by
the degree to which the research environments cause the absorption of poisons
into the blood of children. Science cannot be permitted to be the sole judge
of the appropriateness of such research methods on human subjects, especially
in respect to children. We hold that in these contested cases, the research
study protocols, those of which we are aware, were not appropriate.
|||When it comes to children involved in nontherapeutic research, with the
potential for health risks to the subject children in Maryland, we will
not defer to science to be the sole determinant of the ethicality or legality
of such experiments. The reason, in our view, is apparent from the research
protocols at issue in the case at bar. Moreover, in nontherapeutic research
using children, we hold that the consent of a parent alone cannot make appropriate
that which is innately inappropriate.
|||In T.D. v. New York State Office of Mental Health, 165 Misc.2d 62, 626
N.Y.S. 2d 1015 (1995), that court was presented with a dispute as between
which state agency had control over the approval of experiments using persons
generally incapable of giving consent. Most were mental patients and included
both adult and minor subjects. The trial court agreed with the representatives
of the subjects, granting a partial summary judgment to that effect. In
its opinion, it stated:
|||"The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment as to the validity of
the OMH regulations promulgated November 7, 1990 (14 NYCRR 527.10) which
set forth the procedures to be followed for the nonconsensual participation
by mental patients in potentially high-risk experiments. It is important
to note at the outset that this action is not a broad-based challenge by
the plaintiffs to any and all research performed on human subjects. It is
limited to those procedures which may cause stroke, heart attack, convulsions,
hallucinations, or other diseases and disabilities including death, and
which, while possibly shedding light on possible future treatments to others,
offer no direct therapeutic benefit to the participating subject. Plaintiffs
contend that their challenge affects only approximately 10 studies which
utilize incapable individuals or children, involve more than a minimal risk
and . . . .
|||What is most objected to are the provisions for substituted decision makers.
Courts tread cautiously when third parties are relied on to make decisions
for an incapable patient. . . . When the proposed medical course does not
involve an emergency and is not for the purpose of bettering the patient's
condition, or ending suffering, it may be doubtful if a surrogate decision
maker - a guardian, a committee, a health-care proxy holder, a relative,
or even a parent could properly give consent to permitting a ward to be
used in experimental research with no prospect of direct therapeutic benefit
to the patient himself. `Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves.
But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make
martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal
discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.' (Prince v. Massachusetts,
321 U.S. 158, 170)." Id. at 65-71, 626 N.Y.S.2d at 1017-21 (emphasis
|||The intermediate appellate court of New York, affirmed and modified the
trial court's declaration, finding additional sections of the statute at
issue inappropriate. In respect to the reasonableness of accepting parental
consent for minors to participate in potentially harmful, nontherapeutic
research, that court stated:
|||"We also find unacceptable the provisions that allow for consent
to be obtained on behalf of minors for participation in greater than minimal
risk[ *fn41 ] nontherapeutic research
from the minor's parent or legal guardian, or, where no parent or guardian
is available, from an adult family member involved in making treatment decisions
for the child. . . .
|||We are not dealing here with parental choice among reasonable treatment
alternatives, but with a decision to subject the child to nontherapeutic
treatments and procedures that may cause harmful permanent or fatal side
effects. It follows therefore that a parent or guardian, . . . may not consent
to have a child submit to painful and/or potentially life-threatening research
procedures that hold no prospect of benefit for the child. . . . We do not
limit a parent or legal guardian's right to consent to a child's participation
in therapeutic research that represents a valid alternative and may be the
functional equivalent of treatment." T.D. v. New York State Office
of Mental Health, 228 A.D.2d 95, 123-24, 650 N.Y.S.2d 173, 191-92 (1996).
We concur with that assessment.
|||Additionally, there are conflicting views in respect to nontherapeutic
research, as to whether consent, even of a person capable of consenting,
can justify a research protocol that is otherwise unjustifiable.
|||"The `justifying' side of consent raises some timeless and thorny
questions. What if people consent to activities and results that are repugnant,
or even evil. Even John Stuart Mill worried about consensual slavery. .
. . Today, we wonder whether a woman's consent to appear in graphic, demeaning,
or even violent pornography justifies or immunizes the pornographer. If
she appears to consent to a relationship in which she is repeatedly brutalized,
does her consent stymie our efforts to stop the brutality or punish the
|||These problems make us squirm a little, just as they did Mill. We have
three ways out: We can say, first, `Yes, consent justifies whatever is consented
to - you consented, so case closed;' second, `This particular consent is
deficient - you did not really consent and so the result or action is not
justified;' or third, `You consented, but your consent cannot justify this
action or result.'. . .
|||Note the subtle yet crucial difference between these three options: In
the first, consent is king, while the third option assumes a moral universe
shaped and governed by extra-consensual considerations. The second option,
however, reflects the tension between the other two. We might block the
consented to action, but we pay lip service to consent's justifying role
by assuring ourselves that had the consent been untainted, had it been `informed,'
it would have had moral force. In fact, we pay lip service precisely because
we often silently suspect that consent cannot and does not always justify.
. . . Rather than admit that the consent does not and could not justify
the act, we denigrate the consent and, necessarily, the consenter as well.
|||This is cheating; it is a subterfuge designed to hide our unease and allow
us to profess simultaneous commitment to values that often conflict. . .
|||R. Garnett, Why Informed Consent? Human Experimentation and the Ethics
of Autonomy, 36 Catholic Lawyer 455, 459-60 (1996). The article continues:
|||". . . We should worry about the behavior of the experimenter, about
our own culpability, and not about the subject's choosing capacities.
|||Such restrictions on consent, which aim at objective behaviors and results
rather than at subjective decision-making processes, are common in the criminal
law. For example, guilty pleas must usually be supported by a factual basis,
and be knowing and voluntary. We recognize that defendants might quite rationally
plead guilty to crimes they did not commit and that prosecutors might be
willing to accept such pleas. However, because such pleas embroil the legal
system in a monstrous falsehood, we refuse to accept them while admitting
that they might indeed be in the defendant's correctly perceived best interests.
|||Similarly, in contract and consumer law, we often balance our general
preference for unfettered respect for consensual arrangements against other
concerns. . . . One purpose of these rules is to undeniably substitute the
supposedly better judgment of the legislature and the judiciary about what
is really in a person's best interest. . .
|||. . . The Nuremberg Code explicitly recognized the need to place non-paternalistic
limits on the scope of experiments. The Code asks more of an experiment,
a researcher, or society than mere consent." Id. at 496. *fn42
|||Based on the record before us, no degree of parental consent, and no degree
of furnished information to the parents could make the experiment at issue
here, ethically or legally permissible. It was wrong in the first instance.
|||We hold that in Maryland a parent, appropriate relative, or other applicable
surrogate, cannot consent to the participation of a child or other person
under legal disability in nontherapeutic research or studies in which there
is any risk of injury or damage to the health of the subject.
|||We hold that informed consent agreements in nontherapeutic research projects,
under certain circumstances can constitute contracts; and that, under certain
circumstances, such research agreements can, as a matter of law, constitute
"special relationships" giving rise to duties, out of the breach
of which negligence actions may arise. We also hold that, normally, such
special relationships are created between researchers and the human subjects
used by the researchers. Additionally, we hold that governmental regulations
can create duties on the part of researchers towards human subjects out
of which "special relationships" can arise. Likewise, such duties
and relationships are consistent with the provisions of the Nuremberg Code.
|||The determination as to whether a "special relationship" actually
exists is to be done on a case by case basis. See Williams, 359 Md. at 150,
753 A.2d at 68. The determination as to whether a special relationship exists,
if properly pled, lies with the trier of fact. We hold that there was ample
evidence in the cases at bar to support a fact finder's determination of
the existence of duties arising out of contract, or out of a special relationship,
or out of regulations and codes, or out of all of them, in each of the cases.
|||We hold that on the present record, the Circuit Courts erred in their
assessment of the law and of the facts as pled in granting KKI's motions
for summary judgment in both cases before this Court. Accordingly, we vacate
the rulings of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and remand these cases
to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. *fn43
|||CASE NO. 128: RULING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY GRANTING
APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS VACATED AND CASE REMANDED TO THAT
COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION; COSTS TO BE PAID BY
|||CASE NO. 129: RULING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY GRANTING
APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS VACATED AND CASE REMANDED TO THAT
COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION; COSTS TO BE PAID BY
|||Concurring Opinion follows:
|||Raker, J., concurring in result only:
|||These appeals present the narrow question of whether the Circuit Courts
erred in granting summary judgments to appellee, the Kennedy Krieger Institute,
a research entity, on the ground that, as a matter of law, it owed no duty
to warn appellants, Ericka Grimes and Myron Higgins, et al., human subjects
participating in its research study. I concur in the judgment of the Court
only and join in the Court's judgment that the Circuit Courts erred in granting
summary judgments to appellee. These cases should be remanded for further
|||I concur in the Court's judgment because I find that appellants have alleged
sufficient facts to establish that there existed a special relationship
between the parties in these cases, which created a duty of care that, if
breached, gives rise to an action in negligence. See Ashburn v. Anne Arundel
County, 306 Md. 617, 630-31, 510 A.2d 1078, 1083 (1986). I would hold that
a special relationship giving rise to a duty of care, the breach of which
would be the basis for an action in negligence, existed in these cases and
would remand the cases at bar to the Circuit Courts for further proceedings.
I agree with the majority that this duty includes the protection of research
subjects from unreasonable harm and requires the researcher to inform research
subjects completely and promptly of potential hazards resulting from participation
in the study. See maj. op. at 71, 76-77, 94. As a result of the existence
of this tort duty, I find it unnecessary to reach the thorny question, not
even raised by any of the parties, of whether the informed consent agreements
in these cases constitute legally binding contracts. See maj. op. at 14
(stating that "the consents of the parents in these cases under Maryland
law constituted contracts creating duties"); id. at 65 (stating that
"we hold from our own examination of the record that such provisions
were so contained, mutual assent, offer, acceptance, and consideration existed,
all of which created contractual relationships imposing duties by reason
of the consent agreements themselves . . ."); id. at 94 (stating that
"[w]e hold that informed consent agreements in nontherapeutic research
projects, under certain circumstances can constitute contracts . . .").
|||I have some concern with the mixed message sent by the majority as to
whether the existence of a tort duty arising from a special relationship
existed is a question of law for the court or a question to be determined
by the trier of fact. For example, the majority states that "the creation
of study conditions or protocols or participation in the recruitment of
otherwise healthy subjects to interact with . . . hazardous conditions .
. . would normally warrant or create . . . special relationships as a matter
of law." Maj. op. at 70 (emphasis added). The majority also concludes
that "informed consent agreements in nontherapeutic research projects
. . . , under certain circumstances, . . . can, as a matter of law, constitute
`special relationships' giving rise to duties, out of the breach of which
negligence actions may arise." Id. at 94 (emphasis added).
|||On the other hand, citing Williams v. Maynard, 359 Md. 379, 754 A.2d 379
(2000), the majority ultimately concludes that the determination as to whether
a duty of care existed between the parties is a question to be determined
by the trier of fact on a case-by-case basis. See maj. op. at 94. I disagree
with that conclusion. The holding in Williams relied upon Ashburn, which
stated only that "[i]n order for such a [special] relationship to be
found between police and perpetrator, it must be alleged that there was
some type of ongoing custodial relationship between the police officer and
the actor." Ashburn, 306 Md. at 631 n.2, 510 A.2d at 1085 n.2. Prior
to Williams, Maryland case law established that existence of a duty of care
is a legal question to be determined by the trial court, in the first instance,
and this Court on appeal. See Rosenblatt v. Exxon Co., 335 Md. 58, 76, 642
A.2d 180, 189 (1994) (stating that "the question whether Exxon owed
a duty to Rosenblatt is an issue of law, to be determined by the court");
Jacques v. First Nat'l Bank, 307 Md. 527, 533, 515 A.2d 756, 759 (1986)
(stating that "the duty with which we are here concerned is a duty
imposed by law as a matter of sound policy, for the violation of which a
person may be held to respond in damages in tort."); cf. W. Page Keeton
et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 45, at 320 (5th ed. 1984). I see no
principled reason to create an express exception to this rule for tort duties
arising out of special relationships, particularly in cases like those sub
judice where there are no material facts relating to the existence of a
special relationship in dispute. In contrast, it is the question of whether
such duty was breached in the two cases presented that is a factual determination
to be made by the finder of fact after a trial on the merits on remand.
Cf. maj. op. at 26 n.21.
|||As I have indicated, this case presents a narrow question of whether a
duty in tort exists between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The majority
recites the standard of review on summary judgment, and iterates that "[t]he
purpose of the summary judgment procedure is not to try the case or to decide
the factual disputes, but to decide whether there is an issue of fact, which
is sufficiently material to be tried." Maj. op. at 48. Nonetheless,
the majority appears to have decided the issue of whether such duty of care
was, in fact, breached as a matter of law, without a hearing or a trial
on the merits.
|||I cannot join in the majority's sweeping factual determinations that the
risks associated with exposing children to lead-based paint were foreseeable
and well known to appellees and that appellees contemplated lead contamination
in participants' blood, see id. at 76, 82-83; that the children's health
was put at risk, see id. at 8-10; that there was no complete and clear explanation
in the consent agreements that the research to be conducted was designed
to measure the success of the abatement procedures by measuring the extent
to which the children's blood was being contaminated and that a certain
level of lead accumulation was anticipated, see id. at 3-4, 26, 34, 76-77;
that the parental consent was ineffective, see id. at 14, 75; that the consent
form was insufficient because it lacked certain specific warnings, see id.
at 67; that the consent agreements did not provide that appellees would
provide repairs in the event of lead dust contamination subsequent to the
original abatement measures, see id. at 95 n.43; that the Institutional
Review Board involved in these cases abdicated its responsibility to protect
the safety of the research subjects by misconstruing the difference between
therapeutic and nontherapeutic research and aiding researchers in circumventing
federal regulations, see id. at 4-6, 12-13; that Institutional Review Boards
are not sufficiently objective to regulate the ethics of experimental research,
see id. at 12-13; that it is never in the best interest of any child to
be placed in a nontherapeutic research study that might be hazardous to
the child's health, see id. at 84; that there was no therapeutic value in
the research for the child subjects involved, see id. at 88-89; that the
research did not comply with applicable regulations, see id. at 75; or that
there was more than a minimal risk involved in this study, see id. at 75.
I do not here condone the conduct of appellee, and it may well be that the
majority's conclusions are warranted by the facts of these cases, but the
record before us is limited. Indeed, the majority recognizes that the record
is "sparse." Maj. op. at 14. The critical point is that these
are questions for the jury on remand and are not properly before this Court
at this time.
|||I emphasize that we are deciding the propriety of granting summary judgment.
Therefore, upon remand, appellee is free to offer evidence to support its
|||Unfortunately, the majority chooses to go far beyond the narrow question
presented in these appeals and addresses a number of ancillary issues in
dicta. I cannot join the majority in holding that, in Maryland, a parent
or guardian cannot consent to the participation of a minor child in a nontherapeutic
research study in which there is any risk of injury or damage to the health
of the child without prior judicial approval and oversight. See id. at 7,
13-14, 79-80, 89, 94-95. Nor can I join in the majority's holding that the
research conducted in these cases was per se inappropriate, unethical, and
illegal, see id. at 7-8, 13-14, 75-76, 85, 89, 93. Such sweeping holdings
are far beyond the question presented in these appeals, and their resolution
by the Court, at this time, is inappropriate. I also do not join in what
I perceive as the majority's wholesale adoption of the Nuremberg Code into
Maryland state tort law. See id. at 77-78, 79. Finally, I do not join in
the majority's comparisons between the research at issue in this case and
extreme historical abuses, such as those of the Nazis or the Tuskegee Syphilis
Study. See id. at 10-11.
|||Accordingly, I join the majority only in the judgment to reverse the Circuit
Courts' granting of summary judgments to appellees.
|||*fn1 We note that we have found only
one case fairly close on one point we address later; that being a New York
case that we discuss in the main body of our opinion.
|||*fn2 At least to the extent that commercial
profit motives are not implicated, therapeutic research's purpose is to
directly help or aid a patient who is suffering from a health condition
the objectives of the research are designed to address - hopefully by the
alleviation, or potential alleviation, of the health condition. Nontherapeutic
research generally utilizes subjects who are not known to have the condition
the objectives of the research are designed to address, and/or is not designed
to directly benefit the subjects utilized in the research, but, rather,
is designed to achieve beneficial results for the public at large (or, under
some circumstances, for profit).
|||*fn3 City Homes apparently was a nonprofit
entity affiliated with the Enterprise Foundation, that owned and/or managed
low income housing in Baltimore City.
|||*fn4 In respect to research conducted
or supported by any federal agency, Institutional Review Boards, among other
requirements, must furnish the agency with: (1) a list of IRB members, their
degrees, representative capacity, experience, and employment relationships
between the member and the research entity. Each IRB is required to have
at least five members of varying backgrounds; there must be racial, gender,
and cultural diversity. Each IRB has to contain at least one scientific
member and one non-nonscientific member and one member who is not affiliated
with the institution in any way. No member of an IRB can have a conflicting
interest. 45 CFR Subtitle A, sections 46.103 and 46.107.
|||*fn5 As far as is known from the record,
the children involved at the inception of the study were healthy, although
appellee was unwilling to so concede at oral argument.
|||*fn6 The ultimate goal was to find the
cost of the minimal level of effective lead paint or lead dust abatement
costs so as to help landlords assess, hopefully positively, the commercial
feasibility of attempting to abate lead dust in marginally profitable, lower
rent-urban housing, in order to help preserve such housing in the Baltimore
housing market. One of the aims was to evaluate low-cost methods of abatement
so that some landlords would not abandon their rental units. For those landlords,
complete abatement was not deemed economically feasible. The project would
be able to assess whether a particular level of partial abatement caused
a child's blood lead content to be elevated beyond a level deemed hazardous
to the health of children. The tenants involved, presumably, would be from
a lower rent-urban class. At least one of the consenting parents in one
of these cases was on public assistance, and was described by her counsel
as being a minority. The children of middle class or rich parents apparently
were not involved. "Indeed, the literature on the law and ethics of
human experimentation is replete with warnings that all subjects, but especially
vulnerable subjects, are at risk of abuse by inclusion [as research subjects].
These vulnerable subjects include prisoners, who are subject to coercion;
[see The Prisoner's Cases: Clay v. Martin, 509 F.2d 109 (1975); Barely,
Dinger, Neuser & Mumey v. Lally, 481 F. Supp. 203 ( ); Valenti v. Prudden,
58 A.D.2d 956, 397 N.Y.S.2d 181 (1997)] children and the elderly . . . and
racial minorities, ethnic minorities, and women [see the silicone injections/informed
consent case of Retkova v. Orentreich, 154 Misc.2d 164, 584 N.Y.S.2d 710
(1992)], whom history shows to be the most frequent victims of abuses in
human experimentation." R. Charo, Protecting as to Death: Women, Pregancy
and Clinical Research Trials, 38 St. Louis Law Journal 135, 135 (Fall 1993);
see also In Re Cincinnati Radiation Litigation, 874 F. Supp. 796, 800 (1995)
"The experiments utilized terminal cancer patients . . . . The complaint
alleges that most of the patients selected were African-American and, in
the vernacular of the time, charity patients"; see also L. Ross, Children
As Research Subjects: A Proposal to Revise the Current Federal Regulations
using a Moral Framework. The failure in the informed consent process leads
to serious inequities in research, specifically for the poor and less educated
who bear most of the research burden. Studies show that the process of informed
consent serves as a social filter: Better educated and wealthier individuals
are more likely to refuse to participate and are under represented in most
research. The problem is perpetuated in pediatrics, where parents who volunteer
their children were found to be significantly less educated and under represented
in the professional and managerial occupations compared to their non-volunteering
counterparts." 8 Stanford Law & Policy Review 159, 164 (1997).
|||*fn7 The Navajo miners had been already
working in the uranium mines when the study commenced. Unlike the present
case, the Navajos were not recruited by the researchers to be placed in
the environment being tested for unhealthy substances.
|||*fn8 Generally known as the Jewish Chronic
Disease Hospital study where chronically ill and debilitated patients were
injected with cancer cells without their consent. See Zeleznik v. Jewish
Chronic Disease Hosp., 47 A.D.2d 199. And see Application of Hyman, 42 Misc.
2d 427, 248 N.Y.S.2d 245, rev'd Hyman v. Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital,
21 A.D.2d 495, 251 N.Y.S.2d 818 (1964), rev'd 15 N.Y.2d 317, 206 N.E..2d
338, 258 N.Y.S.2d 397 (1965).
|||*fn9 See generally A. Brockman, The
Other Nuremberg: the Untold Story of the Tokyo War Crime Trials (1987);
P. Williams & D. Wallace, Unit 731: Japan's Secret Biological Warfare
in World War II (1989).
|||*fn10 Appellant, in Case No.128, phrased
the question in similar language: "Did the Circuit Court err in ruling
that a research entity conducting a study does not owe a duty to a human
subject participating in the study when the researcher obtains knowledge
of the potential for harm to the participant who is unaware of the danger?"
We resolve these issues in the context of the trial court's granting of
the appellee's motions for summary judgment.
|||*fn11 From the context, Dr. Farfel
was referring to children in general when making this remark. The purpose
of the study was manifestly not to reduce the level of lead in the blood
of the children that were the subjects of the study, but to create a controlled
research environment focusing on abatement of lead dust. The success of
the various abatement procedures would be measured, in significant part,
not by reducing the levels of lead in the children's blood, but by periodic
measurements of the level of lead in their blood. Thus, it reasonably can
be argued that it was not in KKI's interest for the children to leave the
experiment prior to its conclusion.
|||*fn12 These cases were decided below
by pre-trial motions for summary judgment. The record is therefore not extensive.
|||*fn13 For purposes of this study,
the researchers considered lead in dust elevated if it was more than or
equal to 200 micrograms per square foot for floors, more than or equal to
500 micrograms per square foot for window sills, and more than or equal
to 800 micrograms per square foot for window wells. These were the maximum
allowable levels or "clearance standards" that the Maryland Department
of the Environment (MDE) had said must be met following full lead dust abatements.
COMAR §26.02.07.12. We note that these "clearance standards" only
apply to fully abated houses wherein all the lead dust has been removed,
not to houses, which have not been abated and still have lead dust present,
as is the case in Groups 1, 2, and 3 discussed, infra. Additionally, the
parties disagree as we discuss, infra notes 25 and 27, as to the appropriate
method for obtaining and analyzing accurately such dust samples.
|||*fn14 We have taken the liberty of
referring to the test groups as Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in an attempt to
clarify the verbiage of this opinion due to the fact that the research study
did not provide abbreviated names for Groups 4 and 5.
|||*fn15 Although the EPA funded and
co-sponsored the cost of the actual research, the funds provided for maintenance
and repair of the houses were provided by loans made by DHCD through the
Lead Paint Abatement Program established by the General Assembly. Maryland
Code (1957, 1988 Repl. Vol., 1990 Cum. Supp.), Art. 83B §§ 2-301 through
2-313. On July 1, 1995, these loans were made through the Lead Hazard Reduction
Loan Program as enacted by 1995 Maryland Laws, Chapter 335. See Maryland
Code (1957, 1998 Repl. Vol.), Art. 83B §§ 2-1401 through 2-1411.
|||*fn16 The descriptions of what repairs
and maintenance were conducted at the different levels of intervention were
provided by KKI's brief to this Court in Case Number 129.
|||*fn17 For purposes of the study, lead
dust was presumed to be present in buildings built prior to 1941. The same
requirements controlled selection of Group 4 except that those properties
had allegedly been fully abated.
|||*fn18 XRF refers to "an x-ray
fluorescence analyzer which measures the lead content in paint and other
materials." COMAR § 26.16.01.02(27).
|||*fn19 Actually, the random assignment
was slightly more involved. Assignment was based on whether the property
was currently being used as a residence. Occupied dwellings were assigned
either Level I or Level II intervention at a ratio of 2:1. Vacant dwellings
were assigned either Level III or Level II at a ratio of 2:1. The result
was an equal distribution of houses into each of the three groups.
|||*fn20 The record indicates that only
108 houses actually participated in the study as opposed to 125.
|||*fn21 This Consent Form refers to
repairs that were to be made to the Monroe Street property. KKI contends
in its briefs to this Court that appellant's residence had already been
completely abated as of October 15, 1990, and was not to be subjected to
repairs and maintenance because it was a member of one of the control groups,
Group 4. The evidence suggests and the parties appeared to agree during
oral argument before this Court that the Monroe Street property was a member
of Group 4. Regardless, because we are reviewing this matter in the context
of the granting of summary judgment based upon a trial court determination
that no duty existed as a matter of law and, on remand, the facts of each
case will, of necessity, need to be addressed, we do not need to resolve
to which group it was a member or whether there was, as a matter of fact,
a breach of duty in that case, or even damages for that matter.
|||*fn22 For some unexplained reason,
processing the dust samples typically took several months. KKI notified
Ms. Hughes of the dust sample results via letters dated December 16, 1993,
December 17, 1993, May 19, 1994, October 28, 1994, July 19, 1995, and January
18, 1996, respectively. As we discussed, supra, appellant moved out of the
Monroe Street property in the Summer of 1994, after the first three dust
samples were both collected, and the results presented, to Ms. Hughes.
|||*fn23 ęg/dL is an abbreviation for
micrograms per deciliter. A reading of 9 ęg/dL means that the child had
9 micrograms of lead for every deciliter of blood. See generally Jones v.
Mid-Atlantic Funding Co., 362 Md. 661, 668-69 n.12, 766 A.2d 617, 621 n.12
(2001). At the time Ericka Grimes was tested for lead poisoning, the CDC
used the following nomenclature to classify blood lead concentrations in
children: Class I (Normal) - less than or equal to 9 ęg/dL Class IIA (Moderately
elevated) - 10-14 ęg/dL Class IIB (Moderately elevated) - 15-19 ęg/dL Class
III (Highly elevated) - 20-44 ęg/dL Class IV (Urgently elevated) - 45-69
ęg/dL Class V (Critically elevated) - greater than or equal to 70 ęg/dL
See Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children, Centers for Disease Control
(October 1, 1991).
|||*fn24 Mr. Polakoff, a landlord, or
a landlord's representative, testified in deposition about the properties
that KKI recruited into the program: "Q. It's my understanding that
this house was subject to a study out of Kennedy Institute - A. That is
correct. A. I voluntarily put this property into . . . [the] study . . .
. After that [partial abatement], a tenant with . . . at least one child
under the age of three would have to move into the property. The child and
the property would be periodically tested - the children through blood tests.
. . . . . . A. Well, they [KKI] actually solicited me and they were looking
for vacant properties . . . . Q. . . . What you said is you were aware that
this program was only to be a partial abatement. A. Yes." In an affidavit,
Mr. Polokoff stated that KKI "would refer parents with young children
to the property."
|||*fn25 She rented the property from
CFOD-2 Limited Partnership, in which Chase Management, Inc., was a general
partner. Mr. Lawrence Polakoff was the President of Chase Management, Inc.
The property was vacant and had already received the level of lead dust
abatement specified by the research protocols. In other words Ms. Higgens
was being recruited into moving her child into a study site that was, intentionally,
not completely abated.
|||*fn26 The parties disagree as to the
validity of the figures presented by these samples. Apparently, KKI used
two different dust collecting methods, which resulted in drastically varied
results. The results discussed above were obtained from dust samples collected
by an experimental Cyclone vacuum dust collector. These samples all gave
results, which indicated that the lead present therein was far above the
accepted Maryland clearance levels. See, supra, note 13. However, according
to KKI, the clearance levels are based on dust wipe collection not Cyclone
collection. KKI presented evidence that additional samples were collected
by the dust wipe technique and that these samples indicated a presence of
lead below the Maryland clearance levels. Thus, KKI argues that there was
no indication of a lead hazard in the Federal Street property and thus no
duty to inform appellant of the Cyclone samples. But, in a prior related
document, a May 18, 1992, renewal request for the study, KKI included the
following renewal justification: "Prior to the start of the main study,
we conducted a study of side-by-side dust samples collected by the Kennedy
Institute's Traditional wipe method and by the HVS3 cyclone device selected
for use in the main study. We found that the HVS3 samples had higher lead
loadings than the wipes for all surfaces, . . . possibly attributable to
its being more efficient at collecting dust in cracks and rough surfaces."
As suggested at oral argument by KKI's representative, KKI's position is
that lesser levels of lead do not constitute a hazard, even if they constitute
a risk. The argument ignores the possibility of accumulation of lead in
the blood of the children from various sources.
|||*fn27 ęg/ft2 refers to micrograms
per square foot.
|||*fn28 KKI contends that it had no
duty to inform Ms. Higgins of the high lead concentration results obtained
from dust samples collected by the Cyclone vacuum dust collector. KKI argues
that the Maryland clearance levels for lead concentration in dust are based
solely on the dust wipe collection technique and not the Cyclone vacuum
testing. Thus, because the Cyclone technique typically gives higher results,
and because the dust wipe samples registered under the clearance levels,
KKI argues that there was no potential hazard and thus no duty to inform
appellants. We have addressed this argument, supra, in footnote 26. Moreover,
which process is appropriate, or whether both are, is in dispute. It is
thus a matter to be resolved, if necessary, on remand.
|||*fn29 In 1992, prior to Ms. Higgins
beginning her tenancy at the Federal Street property, Polakoff transferred
ownership of the property to CFOD-2, a limited partnership in which Chase
was a general partner.
|||*fn30 It continued to maintain this
position at oral argument. In respect to the two cases, the following exchanges
occurred: "[Case No. 128:] The Court: What you're saying is there's
no danger to children from lead contained in dust? Respondent: Not that
has ever been established by this Court. The Court: I know that, how about
scientific studies, what do they show? Respondent: . . . Children do ingest
lead through dust. But there's nothing in the record about how much is dangerous.
The Court: . . . It is recognized that house dust is a hazard? Respondent:
I agree, and that was the purpose of this study was to try to eliminate
that hazard. But in terms of defining what that hazard is, the State has
done so in statute and regulation. . . . So why then should Kennedy have
to have a higher duty than the landlord? The Court: Because you were testing
for something the landlord was not obliged to abate, namely dust. The Respondent:
But the results never came back to the level where it was defined as a hazard.
. . . The Court: There's no duty to warn the parent when you find out this
information? The Respondent: Not unless it's of such a level that it's a
hazard. . . . The Court: . . . The consent form apparently said that Kennedy
promised to test appellant's home for lead, discuss the results with her
mother, discuss steps that could be taken to reduce risks . . . . So how
is that keyed to blood levels? My question is . . . If they're going to
test the home for lead there's an agreement to discuss the results with
the mother and if you find it in the dust isn't there an obligation to discuss
that with the mother irrespective of whether there's any elevated blood
levels? Respondent: The plaintiff in this case alleges that there was a
lead hazard in the home that needed to be discussed. And there was no hazard
in the home. Kennedy did say that they were going to inform the parents
of the result of the dust tests. No indication as to when; if that would
be during the study or afterwards. The Court: You don't think that a participant
in the study, when an institute like Krieger comes in and says that I'm
going to tell you, doesn't have a right to rely on that representation and
believe that they're going to be told of that in a timely fashion, which
would mean not at the end of the study but when it's determined? Respondent:
I think the expectation would be that they would be told if there were any
problems. And in this case . . . The Court: What's a problem? The Respondent:
A problem is a lead hazard. . . . Respondent: There was no standard at the
time for what constitutes a hazard with respect to lead dust in homes. The
Court: But Kennedy Krieger considered the hot spot levels, . . . and you
intended that the occupants of the house act on that information because
you gave them kits and you encouraged them to clean those areas better.
Respondent: Sure. It's in the best interests of the children in the home
to have . . . The Court: How is it in their best interest then not to advise
the parent until 9 months after these tests were taken? [Past the time when]
they could do something about it? Respondent: These tests . . . were not
run immediately . . . . . . . The Court: . . . So the only benefit to the
parent was the remuneration that was given for entering into this informed
consent and allowing their children to be a part of this study? The Respondent:
It sounds like Your Honor is looking at this informed consent as a contract
where each side is getting something out of this. And that's not the case.
The informed consent is just that. It's Kennedy informing the participant
what it intends to do. . . . The Respondent: There was some remuneration
involved as an incentive to get the participants to enroll and continue
to follow through. . . . The Court: Kennedy had a reason not to tell these
parents that their kids were exposed to something dangerous, because if
they did the parents might leave and the kids wouldn't stay in the study
to be studied down the road. That's sort of what bothers me an awful lot.
If you inform the participants in the study that a danger has arisen, the
participants leave the house and they're no longer in the study and the
study gets skewered. And it very specifically says in the consent agreement
that they're going to test for lead dust . . . seven or eight times after
the repairs are made and it very specifically says that the results of testing
of the house will be shared with the parents. They assert that you didn't
do it. That may very well be a factual matter, . . . a dispute as to facts
. . . you went on a motion for summary judgment. If there's a dispute of
material facts, I don't know how you win on a motion for summary judgment.
. . . The Respondent: . . . They were all told within the time frame of
the study itself . . . . Kennedy did nothing to hold back information to
keep people in the study. They clearly told everybody if there was some
lead in their dust during the study . . . . The Court: When you talk about
during the study you're talking about the last day, that includes the last
day of the study, which is twenty-four months down the line. . . . The Court:
Under your theory, if the study went on for ten years, it would be O.K.
to tell them on the last day after the ten years . . . . The Respondent:
I'm only dealing with the case at hand. The Court: Could you answer my question?
. . . The Respondent: If the participant had no reason to expect that the
results would be forthcoming sooner. . . . The Court: So your position is
the duty would not arise unless the level of the lead in the dust exceeded
the level established by some other standard that wasn't reached here? The
Respondent: Yes. . . . The Court: Your contract was to protect her against
a risk. . . . Why wasn't that [hot spots] enough to require a warning? Are
you saying that there's a difference in the words hazard and risk? The Respondent:
There is. That was not what she complained of in her complaint. . . . Respondent:
. . . She claimed that there was a lead hazard and the hazard wasn't reported.
The Court: And you're saying there wasn't a hazard even if there was a risk?
Respondent: Yes. There's a risk with everything we do. In everything with
life, there's a risk. The Court: You didn't get summary judgment on the
ground there was insufficient allegation of a hazard. Respondent: Summary
judgment was granted because the court . . . . The Court: [It was granted
because] there's no contract, no privity, no duty whatsoever, . . . no element
of a cause of action. I just can't square that with your argument here.
Respondent: I don't see that they're inconsistent. . . . The Court: First
of all, he found that there was no contract. . . . He found that there was
no governmental statute or regulation, which set up this duty. He found
that also didn't he? . . . He also found no special relationship. . . .
Respondent: Kennedy needed the participants to stay in the study the full
time or the results just weren't valid. . . . The Court: Suppose instead
of these folks being given five dollars and fifteen dollars, . . . for each
event, suppose they were offered a thousand dollars for each event, would
you say this was a contract? . . . Would you still argue this wasn't a contract?
Respondent: Yes. Because either side could withdraw without any claim for
breach of contract from the other. The Court: You can terminate the contract
unilaterally. That doesn't mean that there isn't a contract prior to that
point. . . . [Case No. 129:] Respondent: To say that the appellant in this
case did not get any benefit from the study is pretty disingenuous. What
the appellant had the benefit of in this study of [was] being able to live
in a home that had these repairs done to it . . . . The Court: A child that
has no lead paint, that is normal, moves into a house that has been partially
abated and ends up with elevated lead paint levels and you say that's a
benefit? Respondent: We don't know what this child's lead levels were before
moving into this home, nor do we know where this child was poisoned. The
Court: I thought your study required healthy children to be included in
the study? Respondent: Because that was the only way to measure if the children
did get poisoned as well as . . . . . . . Respondent: No, and this is why
it doesn't bother me. Because these homes were in disrepair. Kennedy went
in there and improved the home and in this case the home was improved so
that it was below clearance standard. . . . This home was made safe and
Kennedy instructed the landlord, `Put children in these homes that we've
made safe. The Court: `So we can test them [the children] to see how safe
we've made them [the houses]?' Respondent: Yes. The Court: If they're safe,
why test the children's blood? The Respondent: Because they had to see,
they were testing to see which levels worked the best. . . . The Court:
Weren't they trying to see how they could do it most inexpensively? Respondent:
Sure. Because there's a problem in Baltimore City with landlords. . . .
The Court: But that almost assumes that they realize that some of the partial
abatements would not be successful. How can you deny that? Respondent: What
they expected was that different levels of repair would have different levels
of effectiveness over time. And that's what they were testing. The Court:
To see which abatement they could use most cheaply? To try and abate more
properties in Baltimore City. Respondent: Yeah. I don't disagree with that.
And all of that was for the benefit of society at large and these children."
|||*fn31 The complete text of the Nuremberg
Code is as follows: "1. The voluntary consent of the human subject
is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should exercise
free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force,
fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint
or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the
elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding
and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance
of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made
known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method
and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards
reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which
may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and
responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each
individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a
personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with
impunity. 2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results
for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study,
and not random and unnecessary in nature. 3. The experiment should be so
designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge
of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that
the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical
and mental suffering and injury. 5. No experiment should be conducted where
there is a prior reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur;
except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians
also serve as subjects. 6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed
that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved
by the experiment. 7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities
provided to protect the experimental subject against even the remote possibilities
of injury, disability, or death. 8. The experiment should be conducted only
by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care
should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct
or engage in the experiment. 9. During the course of the experiment the
human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if
he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment
seemed to him to be impossible. 10. During the course of the experiment
the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at
any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good
faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation
of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to
the experimental subject. [Emphasis added.]
|||*fn32 In the past several months,
the country has also learned of another research project approved by the
scientific "community" and conducted by "institutional volunteers,"
that was performed without appropriate concern for the children that were
used as subjects to attempt to prove a scientific hypothesis. The particular
experiment was conducted by American scientists, and was discontinued, and
then concealed in the post-World War II period because of concerns raised
by students that it was a "monster experiment" that would, if
discovered, be compared to the World War II experiments and would ruin the
careers of the scientists and researchers involved. The leader of the experiment,
a professor at the State University of Iowa, prior to the experiment being
uncovered, even had a prestigious scientific institute named after him -
the Wendell Johnson Speech and Hearing Center. Wendell Johnson was a stutterer.
As his education and career advanced, he formulated hypotheses that stuttering
is emphasized and conditioned in children by environmental causes rather
than by genetic or inherited traits. He believed that criticism by parents,
and others, during childhood years, caused children to lose confidence in
their ability to communicate by speech, resulting, in the worst cases, in
stuttering. At that point, Johnson was a scientist with a theory searching
for subjects to prove it. Obviously, educated and/or knowledgeable parents
would not, if aware of his methods, permit him to attempt to turn their
children into stutterers. Accordingly, with the university's blessing, he
approached a nearby state orphanage that had been utilized in other research
by the university, and, under the guise of improving the speech of the orphans
involved, had a research assistant begin the experiment. Over time, she
conditioned several of the orphans who had not theretofore stuttered, to
become stutterers. She was very successful. Thereafter, only minimal and
unsuccessful efforts were made to cure the affected orphans of the stuttering
that the scientists had induced. Shortly thereafter, when the project was
compared to World War II experiments, it was terminated. No research was
ever published, although in the speech pathology scientific community there
was some knowledge of it. The study documents were concealed or destroyed
and have not survived. The theretofore unstuttering orphans that had been
conditioned to stutter remained stutterers for their entire lives, experiencing
severe lifelong problems because of the experiment. It was not until a letter
from one of the orphans caused the now aged research assistant to have an
attack of conscience and she contacted the press, that the sixty-year-old
experiment came to light. The University of Iowa, the successor to the State
University of Iowa, confirmed the experiment in a recent apology. The nation
was informed of the experiment in a series of articles by Jim Dyer in the
San Jose (California) Mercury News beginning on June 10, 2001. A university
spokesman termed the experiment "regrettable." He stated further:
"This is a study that should never be considered defensible in any
era." When it was suggested that its research and clinical institute
should be renamed, the university spokesman stated: "In no way would
I ever think of defending this study. In no way. It's more than unfortunate."
Sources: J. Dyer, Article - A lifetime later, experiment on orphans haunts
researcher. San Jose Mercury News June 10, 2001; J. Dyer, Article - Orphans
retain scars from long-ago experiment. San Jose Mercury News, June 11, 2001;
J. Dyer, Article - University issues apology for 1939 experiment that induced
orphans to stutter. San Jose Mercury News, June 14, 2001; P.N. Marshall,
Program Article - John Dyer Discusses a 1930 Study on Stuttering - Weekly
edition - The Best of National Public Radio, June 23, 2001. Similar to the
research at issue in the case at bar, the children in the stuttering study
were deliberately placed in a potentially harmful experimental environment
for the good of science in order to test a theory that, if proven, might
have helped many more children. The University of Iowa, however belatedly,
has acknowledged the impropriety of that experiment and apologized for its
involvement. KKI continues to assert the propriety of a study that is inherently
inappropriate - no less so than the stuttering research on vulnerable orphans
in the Midwest sixty years ago. Inappropriate experimentation in this country
involving children as subjects is not new.
|||*fn33 We note that there was little
suggestion of actual permanent injury to the children involved with these
two cases. Our opinion is not directed to the matter of whether damages
can be proven in the present cases.
|||*fn34 The record reflects that in
addition to the $5.00 and $15.00 sums mentioned in the consent form as periodic
payments for participation in stages of the study, there was a stream of
compensation flowing to the research subjects and the parents. Gifts, trinkets,
coupons for food, etc., would be given to the subjects or their parents
periodically. Moreover, the researchers informed the E.P.A., when seeking
funding approval, that: "[A] number of incentives are planned both
in the clinic and in the home of the type that were well received in the
recently completed Maryland Lead in Soil Project, i.e., (1) coupons for
things ranging from skating trips to groceries; (2) gifts for the children
such as T-shirts in the summer, and hats and gloves during winter clinic
appointments; (3) ongoing incentives for parents such as $10.00 - $20.00
food coupons provided at each clinic visit for blood collection. Lastly,
respondents will be reimbursed $15.00 each time they provide questionnaire
information . . . ."
|||*fn35 We make no determination as
to whether informed consent in a therapeutic medical context can generate
|||*fn36 Moreover, it is not clear that
KKI was a mere volunteer in any event. It received funding for developing
and conducting the research. Whether it recognized a profit is unknown from
the record. The "for profit" nature of some research may well
increase the duties of researchers to insure the safety of research subjects,
and may well increase researchers' or an institution's susceptibility for
damages in respect to any injuries incurred by research subjects.
|||*fn37 HHS refers to the Department
of Health and Human Services.
|||*fn38 We have found no indication
in the record that the research protocols were approved by The Secretary.
We again emphasize, however, that these cases were determined on summary
judgment motions and the record is, accordingly, incomplete. Moreover, perhaps
because of the limiting effect of summary judgment procedures early in the
case, there is no indication that we can find in the record, or to which
we were directed, that indicates that a "National Review" was
conducted. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Rights of
Biomedical and Behavior Research (National Commission) report, which is
incorporated in the federal regulations at 45 C.F.R. Section 46.407 (b),
requires "national review" where nontherapeutic research involving
children entails risks over a minimal risk, which is defined as risks beyond
that which a child confronts in every day life.
|||*fn39 The Declaration of Helsinki
was crafted by the international medical profession, as preferable to the
Nuremberg Code crafted by lawyers and judges and adopted right after the
Second World War. The Declaration, or, for that matter, the Nuremberg Code,
have never been formally adopted by the relevant governmental entities,
although the Nuremberg Code was intended to apply universally. The medical
profession, and its ancillary research organs, felt that the Nuremberg Code
was too restrictive because of its origins from the Nazi horrors of that
era. Serious questions arise in this case under either code, even under
the more general provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki apparently favored
by doctors and scientists.
|||*fn40 The doctrine of "mature
minor" recognizes that some minors are sufficiently mature to consent.
|||*fn41 Minimal risk has been defined
as "meaning "that the probability of harm or discomfort anticipated
in the research are not greater in and off themselves than those ordinarily
encountered in daily life or during the routine physical or psychological
examinations or tests." Katerberg, Institutional Review Boards, Research
on Children, and Informed Consent of Parents: Walking the Tightrope Between
Encouraging Vital Experimentation and Protecting Subject's Rights, 24 Journal
of College and University Law 545, 555 (Winter 1998), in part quoting from
45 Code Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 46.102(i).
|||*fn42 "Categorical limitations
on human research and experimentation, . . . would unavoidably slow us down
. . . . Many might die of AIDS who would otherwise be willing to take risks
on the slight chance that the next miracle drug might really work . . .
. But these losses might be - like the occasionally guilty defendant going
free --a price worth paying. The question is not whether we can afford to
honor our commitment to human dignity, free from subterfuges . . . , but
whether we can afford not to, or whether we ought to. . . . The lure of
perfectionism and of the all-consuming pursuit of knowledge, both the conceit
and the curiosity of the scientist, all conspire to tempt us to play fast
and loose with the dignity of our research subjects and ourselves.Why Informed
Consent at 502-11.
|||*fn43 The appellants also asserted
that the consent agreements required KKI to again repair their homes if
lead dust appeared after the original abatement measures were taken. The
consent agreements do not so provide. In light of our opinion, we do not
address this issue further.
The Best on the WWW Since 1995!
Copyright as to non-public domain materials
See DR-KATE.COM for home hurricane and disaster preparation
See WWW.EPR-ART.COM for photography of southern Louisiana and Hurricane Katrina
Professor Edward P. Richards, III, JD, MPH - Webmaster