Motion in Limine on Medical Animation Video

Below is a sample opposition to a motion in limine filed in a medical malpractice case where the hospital attempted to block our use of a medical animation. The animation clearly depicted the sequence of events that led to the patient’s death—a visual explanation supported by expert medical testimony. The court denied the defense’s motion, allowing the jury to view the animation. That same jury ultimately returned a $10 million verdict in favor of the victim’s family.

This case highlights a growing trend: plaintiffs’ attorneys are leveraging technology, especially medical malpractice trial animations, to better educate juries about how medical negligence causes harm. These tools are powerful because they simplify complex medical issues. And jurors who understand what happened are more likely to hold negligent defendants accountable.

Recognizing this, defense attorneys are increasingly filing motions in limine to exclude these animations and other demonstrative aids. Their strategy is clear: limit the jury’s exposure to the full story. That’s why trial lawyers need to stay ahead, continuously developing new and persuasive ways to present evidence while also aggressively challenging efforts by the defense to suppress it.

We must not only innovate in how we present our cases—we must also be prepared to defend those innovations in court.

The Opposition to Defendant’s Motion in Limine

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY
Civil Division

CYNTHIA TAYLOR, Individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Dennis Taylor, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

Case No.: 24-C-15-003384 MM

MEGAN BURKS, M.D., et al.

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE VIDEO ANIMATION AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING

Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Miller & Zois, LLC, files this Opposition to the Defendants’ Motion in Limine to exclude the Plaintiffs’ video and in support thereof states as follows:

Introduction

Defendants have moved to exclude Plaintiffs’ proposed medical animation from evidence. This motion is based on a mischaracterization of both the purpose and content of the demonstrative exhibit. The video does not assert speculative medical causation or present unfounded conclusions. Rather, it illustrates a medically-supported sequence of events following the ingestion of a Kayexalate/Sorbitol mixture by Plaintiff Dennis Taylor on March 18, 2024. The animation tracks the medication’s movement through Mr. Taylor’s gastrointestinal system and highlights the visual presence of Kayexalate crystals within necrotic colon tissue, which was surgically removed on March 19, 2024. This animation reflects the expert findings that will be presented at trial and is offered as an illustrative tool, not as independent evidence of causation.

The Nature and Purpose of the Animation

The animation is a visual demonstrative aid that supports expert testimony. It shows how the Kayexalate/Sorbitol mixture is administered and travels through the body. It also illustrates the removal of potassium via ion exchange and depicts the presence of Kayexalate crystals in Mr. Taylor’s colon, consistent with pathology reports. Importantly, the animation does not assert that the Kayexalate crystals alone caused Mr. Taylor’s injuries. Instead, it helps the jury understand the physiological sequence of events that culminated in the removal of his colon—a finding consistent with both pathology and the Defendants’ own documentation.

Defendants’ Internal Documentation Supports Plaintiffs’ Theory

Despite their objections, Defendants’ own internal clinical guidance corroborates the risks shown in the animation. In their published Hyperkalemia Guidelines, Defendants acknowledge that a well-known risk associated with Kayexalate in Sorbitol is “intestinal necrosis and bowel perforation.” This is exactly the injury depicted in the animation and observed in Mr. Taylor’s case. See Exhibit 1.

Furthermore, the Defendant’s own pharmacist, David Bates, confirmed in deposition that Sorbitol—not the Kayexalate crystals—is responsible for ischemic injury to the colon. He testified: “The sorbitol level, the sorbitol part is the one that can cause ischemia after the bowel obstruction.” (See Exhibit 2, Bates Deposition at page 28.) This testimony is consistent with the mechanism illustrated in the animation and validates its medical accuracy.

Legal Standard for Admissibility

Under Maryland law, the admissibility of demonstrative evidence such as animations requires only that “the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Washington v. State, 406 Md. 642 (2008). The standard does not require scientific certainty or unanimity; it requires a foundational showing that the demonstrative tool accurately depicts the testimony it is offered to support.

Photographic and video evidence—including medical animations—are admissible for illustrative purposes if they fairly and accurately represent the facts as testified to by qualified witnesses. As the Maryland Court of Appeals stated in Dept. of Safety v. Cole, 342 Md. 12, “Typically, photographs are admissible to illustrate the testimony of a witness when the witness testifies from first-hand knowledge that the photographs fairly and accurately represent the object it purports to depict.” The same standard applies to animations and videos.

Expert Testimony Will Support the Animation

The Plaintiffs will satisfy the evidentiary foundation for this animation through multiple medical experts, including Dr. Robert Evans, a board-certified pathologist. Dr. Evans examined Mr. Taylor’s resected colon tissue and personally observed Kayexalate crystals within the necrotic tissue. The colon was surgically removed on March 19, 2024—just one day after ingestion of the Kayexalate/Sorbitol solution.

Dr. Evans reviewed the animation and will testify that it is a fair and accurate depiction of:

• The administration of the Kayexalate/Sorbitol medication;
• The passage of the medication through the gastrointestinal system;
• The physiological process by which potassium is removed from the bloodstream;
• The visual appearance of Kayexalate crystals in necrotic tissue, consistent with his pathology findings;
• The overall mechanism of injury resulting from Sorbitol-induced ischemia and necrosis;
• The helpfulness of the animation in explaining his expert opinions to the jury.

See Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Dr. Ozde.

Corroboration by Additional Experts

In addition to Dr. Evans, Plaintiffs will offer testimony from other qualified medical professionals who agree with the mechanism of injury depicted in the animation. These experts will testify that the animation is based on reliable scientific principles, visually communicates the physiological impact of the Kayexalate/Sorbitol mixture, and is consistent with medical records and pathology results.

The animation is not offered as substantive evidence, but as a demonstrative tool to aid the jury in understanding complex medical concepts. It provides context and visual reinforcement to the testimony of Plaintiffs’ experts and should be admitted under prevailing Maryland law.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny Defendants’ motion to exclude the medical animation and permit its use at trial to illustrate the expert testimony concerning the injuries suffered by Dennis Taylor following his ingestion of the Kayexalate/Sorbitol mixture on March 18, 2024.

Miller & Zois, LLC
_________________________________
Laura G. Zois
1 South Street, Suite 2450
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
T: (410) 553-6000
F: (844) 712-5151
Attorney for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD-FAITH ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE THE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Undersigned counsel hereby affirms that he sent Defendant’s counsel emails on August 24, 2024, and on August 25, 2024, explaining why the two documents which UBMC produced did not comply with the Court Order. Undersigned counsel requested copies of all drop-down and scroll across boxes and offered to travel to the Hospital for UBMC to produce these items in the presence of a UBMC Representative. As of this date, UBMC has refused to produce the documents ordered by this Court, and the parties are unable to resolve this dispute and require court intervention.

 

_________________________________
Rodney M. Gaston

REQUEST FOR A HEARING

Plaintiffs respectfully request an emergency hearing on this matter.

_________________________________
Rodney M. Gaston

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 29^th day of August 2016, a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions and Request for a Hearing was sent via electronic delivery and first-class mail, postage prepaid, to:

Ronald U. Shaw, Esquire
Shaw & Morrow, P.A.
11350 McCormick Road
Executive Plaza III, Suite 1200
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Attorneys for Defendants Taylor Burks, M.D. and University of Maryland Medical System Corp.

_________________________________
Rodney M. Gaston

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY
Civil DivisionCYNTHIA TAYLOR, Individually, and as P.R. of the Estate of Dennis Taylor, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

Case No.: 24-C-15-003384 MM

TAYLOR BURKS, M.D., et al.

Defendants.

ORDER In consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions, and any response thereto, it is this _________ day of ___________________ 2024, by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, HEREBY ORDERED:

1. That the Plaintiffs’ Motion is granted, and that on or before September _______ 2016, that:
2. UBMC shall permit the undersigned counsel to actually sit at a UBMC computer screen with a UBMC representative present; and
3. The UBMC representative shall access the Hyperkalemia Order Set on the computer in the presence of Plaintiffs’ counsel; and
4. The UBMC representative shall access each of the remaining 21 drop-down boxes and all of the scroll across boxes on the Hyperkalemia Order Set in the presence of Plaintiffs’ counsel; and
5. The UBMC representative shall, at the same time the drop down and scroll across boxes are accessed, immediately print each computer screen shot of each drop down and scroll across boxes and immediately provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with paper copies of these screen shots; and
6. UBMC shall pay the sum of $500.00 to the law firm of Miller & Zois, LLC.

___________________________________
Judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

 

Cc: Rodney M. Gaston
Ronald U. Shaw

More Malpractice Trial Preparation Materials

• More Malpractice Related Forms and Motions
• Sample Motions (other sample motions)
• More Sample Motions in Limine