UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

DAFINKA STOJCEVSKI, as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of DAVID 

STOJCEVSKI, Deceased,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF MACOMB, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-11019

Hon. Linda V. Parker

Mag. Judge David R. Grand

IHRIE O’BRIEN

Robert D. Ihrie (P26451)

Harold A. Perakis (P35921)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

24055 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2000

St. Clair Shores, MI 48080

(586) 778-7778

ihrieobrien@aol.com

hperakis@ihrieobrienlaw.com

MACOMB COUNTY 

CORPORATION COUNSEL

John A. Schapka (P36731)

Robert S. Gazall (P41350)

Attorneys for Macomb County 

Defendants

One S. Main Street, 8th Floor

Mount Clemens, MI 48043

(586) 469-6346

john.schapka@macombgov.org

robert.gazall@macombgov.org

CHAPMAN LAW GROUP

Ronald W. Chapman Sr., M.P.A., 

LL.M. (P37603)

Madeline R. Young (P82140)

Attorneys for Correct Care Solutions

Defendants

1441 West Long Lake Rd., Suite 310

Troy, MI 48098

(248) 644-6326

rchapman@chapmanlawgroup.com

myoung@chapmanlawgroup.com

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & 

Dicker, LLP

John T. Eads, III (P43815)

Cara M. Swindlehurst (P79953)

Co-Counsel for Macomb County 

Defendants 

17197 N. Laurel Park Dr., Suite 201

Livonia, MI 48152

(313) 327-3100

John.Eads@wilsonelser.com

Cara.Swindlehurst@wilsonelser.com

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7876 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 42
2

DEFENDANTS CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, L.L.C.; MONICA 

CUENY; CHANTALLE BROCK; MICAL BEY-SHELLY; VICKY 

BERTRAM; AND LAWRENCE SHERMAN, M.D.’S MOTION IN LIMINE

TO PRECLUDE THE USE OF THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS AS 

FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS/OPINION

NOW COMES Defendants CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, L.L.C.; 

MONICA CUENY; CHANTALLE BROCK; MICAL BEY-SHELLY; VICKY 

BERTRAM; LAWRENCE SHERMAN, M.D.; (the “CCS Defendants”), by and 

through their counsel Chapman Law Group, moves to preclude the use of the 

surveillance videos as foundation for a medical diagnosis/opinion, and state as 

follows:

1. Plaintiff’s theory is the CCS Defendants provided inadequate medical care 

in allegedly failing to treat Mr. Stojcevski for a benzodiazepine withdrawal 

resulting in dehydration and, ultimately, his death. (ECF No. 1).

2. This theory is based in part on the findings documented by the Medical 

Examiner, Dr. Mary Pietrangelo, whose “final diagnosis” concluded acute 

withdrawal from chronic benzodiazepine, methadone, and opiate 

medications; dehydration with hypernatremia; and “seizure/seizure-like” 

activity. (Exhibit A). 

3. Dr. Pietrangelo’s conclusion that Mr. Stojcevski suffered acute withdrawal 

from chronic benzodiazepine, methadone, and opiate medications was 

based on her observation that Mr. Stojcevksi appeared to display “seizureCase 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7877 Filed 02/04/21 Page 2 of 42
3

like” activity when reviewing the Mental Health video surveillance footage 

of Mr. Stojcevski’s jail cell. (Exhibit B, p. 47:11-25). This video 

documented his activity while he was housed in Macomb County Jail’s 

high observation unit from June 11, 2014 to June 27, 2014.

4. Dr. Pietrangelo admits she cannot opine with certainty that Mr. Stojcevski 

experienced seizures, which is why she describes Mr. Stojcevski displayed 

“seizure-like” activity. (Id. at p. 92:6-16).

5. There is no other corroborating evidence to support Mr. Stojcevski 

suffered from seizures while he was housed in Macomb County Jail’s high 

observation unit.

6. The admission of this video for the purposes of medical diagnosis raises 

multiple evidentiary issues. First, this video cannot be properly 

authenticated under Fed. R. Evid. 901, which is a pre-requisite for its 

admission.

7. Secondly, any probative value of this video for the use of medical 

diagnosis is substantially outweighed by the dangers of misleading and 

confusing the jury under Fed. R. Evid. 403. The relevant peer reviewed 

literature, opinions of the relevant expert community, and case studies 

demonstrate this video surveillance system cannot be a reliable foundation 

for a medical opinion or diagnosis. The low quality of this video recording, 

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7878 Filed 02/04/21 Page 3 of 42
4

as addressed in detail in the accompanying brief in support, creates a 

propensity to have the recorded subjects appear “jerky” or “twitchy” while 

moving. This movement matches the description upon which Dr. 

Pietrangelo bases her opinion that Mr. Stojcevski appeared to experience 

“seizure-like” activity when reviewing his surveillance video. Thus, the 

appearance of this “seizure-like” activity is caused by the low-quality 

recording system and does not demonstrate Mr. Stojcevski experienced 

seizures during his incarceration, and therefore, this video must be 

precluded for this purpose. This is especially true considering the lack of 

corroborating evidence Mr. Stojcevski ever experienced seizures while 

being incarcerated.

8. Third, Dr. Pietrangelo’s opinion that Mr. Stojcevski suffered from seizurelike activity and therefore died of a withdrawal must be excluded under 

Fed. R. Evid. 702. She lacks the requisite qualifications to formulate a 

medical opinion based on a low-quality video, has no experience in 

diagnosing seizure using video technology, and the relevant literature, case 

studies, and expert community opine that Dr. Pietrangelo’s methodology 

in formulating her opinion is unreliable. This video is not a trustworthy 

basis for a medical diagnosis, and especially a seizure diagnosis.

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7879 Filed 02/04/21 Page 4 of 42
5

9. Lastly, if this Court allows Plaintiff to add an expert to authenticate this 

video for introduction into evidence, Defendants request the same relief.

10.Defense counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel on January 13, 2021, via

telephone to attain concurrence. Concurrence could not be obtained. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, L.L.C.; 

MONICA CUENY; CHANTALLE BROCK; MICAL BEY-SHELLY; VICKY 

BERTRAM; LAWRENCE SHERMAN, M.D.; by and through their counsel, 

CHAPMAN LAW GROUP, respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an 

order with the following conditions:

1. Preclude the use of the surveillance videos; and

2. Preclude Dr. Pietrangelo’s opinion that Mr. Stojcevski suffered “seizurelike activity” and therefore died from withdrawals under Fed. R. Evid. 702, 

or order a Daubert hearing to explore the basis of such opinion.

Alternatively, should this Court deny this motion and allow Plaintiff to add a video 

forensic expert to authenticate the video, Defendants respectfully request this 

Honorable Court enter a mutual order and allow Defendants to also add a forensic 

video expert to opine on the authenticity and reliability of the surveillance video.

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7880 Filed 02/04/21 Page 5 of 42
6

Respectfully submitted,

CHAPMAN LAW GROUP

Dated: February 4, 2021 /s/ Madeline R. Young

Ronald W. Chapman Sr., M.P.A., 

LL.M. (P37603)

Madeline R. Young (P82140)

Attorneys for the CCS Defendants 

1441 West Long Lake Rd., Suite 310

Troy, MI 48098

(248) 644-6326

rchapman@chapmanlawgroup.com

myoung@chapmanlawgroup.com

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7881 Filed 02/04/21 Page 6 of 42
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

DAFINKA STOJCEVSKI, as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of DAVID 

STOJCEVSKI, Deceased,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF MACOMB, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-11019

Hon. Linda V. Parker

Mag. Judge David R. Grand

IHRIE O’BRIEN

Robert D. Ihrie (P26451)

Harold A. Perakis (P35921)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

24055 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2000

St. Clair Shores, MI 48080

(586) 778-7778

ihrieobrien@aol.com

hperakis@ihrieobrienlaw.com

MACOMB COUNTY 

CORPORATION COUNSEL

John A. Schapka (P36731)

Robert S. Gazall (P41350)

Attorneys for Macomb County 

Defendants

One S. Main Street, 8th Floor

Mount Clemens, MI 48043

(586) 469-6346

john.schapka@macombgov.org

robert.gazall@macombgov.org

CHAPMAN LAW GROUP

Ronald W. Chapman Sr., M.P.A., 

LL.M. (P37603)

Jonathan C. Lanesky (P59740)

Attorneys for Correct Care Solutions

Defendants

1441 West Long Lake Rd., Suite 310

Troy, MI 48098

(248) 644-6326

rchapman@chapmanlawgroup.com

jlanesky@chapmanlawgroup.com

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & 

Dicker, LLP

John T. Eads, III (P43815)

Cara M. Swindlehurst (P79953)

Co-Counsel for Macomb County 

Defendants 

17197 N. Laurel Park Dr., Suite 201

Livonia, MI 48152

(313) 327-3100

John.Eads@wilsonelser.com

Cara.Swindlehurst@wilsonelser.com

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7882 Filed 02/04/21 Page 7 of 42
ii

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, 

L.L.C.; MONICA CUENY; CHANTALLE BROCK; MICAL BEY-SHELLY; 

VICKY BERTRAM; LAWRENCE SHERMAN, M.D.’S MOTION IN 

LIMINE TO PRECLUDE THE USE OF THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS 

AS FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS/OPINION

PROOF OF SERVICE

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7883 Filed 02/04/21 Page 8 of 42
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................... iv

INDEX OF EXHIBITS........................................................................................... vii

STATEMENTS OF ISSUES PRESENTED .............................................................x

CONTROLLING/APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY FOR RELIEF SOUGHT........ xi

I. RELEVANT FACTUAL HISTORY ..................................................................1

II. LEGAL STANDARD .........................................................................................3

III. LEGAL ARGUMENT .....................................................................................3

A. Discussion Of The Unreliability Of The Video Footage. ................................4

B. This Video Cannot Be Authenticated...............................................................8

C. This Video Will Mislead The Jury.................................................................11

D. There Are No Other Corroborating Sources of That Mr. Stojcevski 

Experienced Seizures. ...........................................................................................15

E. Dr. Pietrangelo’s Opinion Must Be Precluded Because It Is Based On The 

Distorted Video, Which Lacks the Reliability Standards Set Forth In Daubert. .17

F. Defendants Request Mutual Relief To Add A Video Forensic Expert..........21

IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................23

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7884 Filed 02/04/21 Page 9 of 42
iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES PAGE

Berry v. City of Detroit, 25 F.3d 1342 (6th Cir. 1994).............................................18

Bessemer & Lake Erie R.R. Co. v. Seaway Marine Transport, 596 F.3d 357 (6th 

Cir. 2010)..............................................................................................................22

Carlson v. Fewins, No. 1:08-cv-991, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183080 (W.D. Mich. 

Oct. 19, 2016).......................................................................................................23

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ........... passim

Frye v. CSX Trans., Inc., 933 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 2019) ..........................................12

Harlamert v. World Finer Foods, Inc., 489 F.3d 767 (6th Cir. 2007) ..................x, 9

Hopper v. Plummer, 887 F.3d 744 (6th Cir. 2018)..................................................16

In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2008) ............................. xi

Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613 (6th Cir. 2002)............................................22

Jennings v. Fuller, No. 13-13308, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77945 (E.D. Mich. May

23, 2017)...............................................................................................................21

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137; 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999)........... 17, 19

Marie v. American Red Cross, 771 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 2014)..................................21

Martin v. Patterson, No. 5:12-117, 2014 WL 769173 (E.D.Ky. Feb. 25, 2014) .. 12, 

13, 15

Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172; 117 S.Ct. 644; 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997) x, 

12

Paschal v. Flagstar Bank, 295 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2002).........................................12

Powell v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 4 Ariz. App. 172; 418 P.2d 602 (Ariz. Ct. 

App. 1966)............................................................................................................14

Powell v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 102 Ariz. 11; 423 P.2d 348 (Ariz. 1967).....14

Smelser v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 105 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 1997) ........................18

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7885 Filed 02/04/21 Page 10 of 42
v

State v. Muro, 909 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).................................. 13, 14, 15

Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 620 F.3d 665 (6th Cir. 2010) .....................................18

Thomas v. City of Chattanooga, 398 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2005)................................18

U.S. v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 1993)...............................................................19

U.S. v. Wiggan, 700 F.3d 1204 (2012) ................................................................x, 11

United States v. Awadallah, 436 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2006)...................................x, 12

United States v. Brawner, 173 F.3d 966 (6th Cir. 1999)...........................................3

United States v. Hitt, 981 F.2d 422 (9th Cir. 1992)...................................................x

United States v. Martin, 746 F.2d 964 (3d Cir. 1984).............................................15

United States v. Parker, No. 3:10-CR-133, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29611 (E.D. 

Tenn. Feb. 14, 2011).............................................................................................16

United States v. Seago, 930 F.2d 482 (6th Cir. 1991) ...............................................3

Utley v. Heckinger, 235 Ark. 780, 362 S.W.2d 13 (Ark. 1962)..............................14

Vance v. United States, 182 F.3d 920 (6th Cir. 1999).............................................22

Zerega Ave. Realty Corp. v. Hornbeck Offshore Transp., LLC, 571 F.3d 206 (2d 

Cir. 2009)................................................................................................................9

OTHER AUTHORITIES PAGE

Can Juries Really Believe What They See? New Foundational Requirements for the 

Authentication of Digital Images. (2002) 10 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 267 ..............9

RULES PAGE

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) ......................................................................................... 21, 22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c).................................................................................................22

Fed. R. Evid. 104(a).................................................................................................18

Fed. R. Evid. 403 ............................................................................................ 3, x, 11

Fed. R. Evid. 702 ............................................................................................. passim

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7886 Filed 02/04/21 Page 11 of 42
vi

Fed. R. Evid. 901 .............................................................................................. 3, x, 8

Fed. R. Evid. 901(a)...............................................................................................x, 8

Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1)..............................................................................................x

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7887 Filed 02/04/21 Page 12 of 42
vii

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT A Autopsy Report, dated August 21, 2014

EXHIBIT B Deposition Transcript of Mary E. Pietrangelo, M.D., dated 

December 19, 2017

EXHIBIT C Deposition Transcript of Deputy Paul Joseph Harrison, dated 

June 1, 2017

EXHIBIT D Deposition Transcript of Deputy Morgan Cooney, dated 

October 25, 2017

EXHIBIT E Deposition Transcript of Deputy Brian Wade Pingilley, dated

November 6, 2017

EXHIBIT F Deposition Transcript of Deputy David Stephen White, dated 

December 1, 2017

EXHIBIT G Deposition Transcript of Deputy Mitchell Lee Blount, dated 

December 1, 2017

EXHIBIT H Deposition Transcript of Deputy Larry James, dated 

December 1, 2017

EXHIBIT I Deposition Transcript of Deputy Walter Oxley, dated 

November 7, 2017

EXHIBIT J Deposition Transcript of Detective John Talos, dated 

October 25, 2017

EXHIBIT K Deposition Transcript of Steven Robert Vaneenoo, dated 

November 6, 2017

EXHIBIT L Deposition Transcript of Lawrence Sherman, M.D., dated April 

28, 2017 and September 20, 2017

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7888 Filed 02/04/21 Page 13 of 42
viii

EXHIBIT M Defendant Macomb County Interrogatory Responses Regarding 

Video Surveillance

EXHIBIT N Pelco DX8100 Manual

EXHIBIT O Article: “To Catch a Thief – You Need at Least 8 Frames Per 

Second: The impact of frame rates on user performance in a 

CCTV detection task” published October 2008

EXHIBIT P Article: “High Speed Cameras for Motion Analysis in Sports 

Science” published January 2016

EXHIBIT Q Article: “Delivering Diagnostic Quality Video Over Mobile 

Wireless Networks for Telemedicine” published May 4, 2009

EXHIBIT R 2014 American Telemedicine Association Guidelines,

published May 2014

EXHIBIT S University of Missouri School of Medicine’s Telemedicine 

Assistance Documents, published in 2004

EXHIBIT T Article: “Implementing Telemedicine in Correctional

Facilities” published May 2002

EXHIBIT U Article: “High Frame Rate Medical Quality Video Compression 

for Tele-EEG” published August 2016

EXHIBIT V Article: “Improving Patient Care by Unshackling

Telemedicine: Adaptively Aggregating Wireless networks to 

Facilitate Continuous Collaboration” published November 12, 

2010

EXHIBIT W Article: “Toward the Understanding of Topographical and 

Spectral Signatures of Infant Movement Artifacts in Naturalistic 

EEG” published April 28, 2020

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7889 Filed 02/04/21 Page 14 of 42
ix

EXHIBIT X Article: “NeuroKinect: A Novel Low-Cost 3Dvideo-EEG 

System for Epileptic Seizure Motion Quantification” published 

January 22, 2016

EXHIBIT Y States v. Parker, No. 3:10-CR-133, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

29611 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 14, 2011)

EXHIBIT Z Jennings v. Fuller, No. 13-13308, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

77945 (E.D. Mich. May 23, 2017)

EXHIBIT AA Carlson v. Fewins, No. 1:08-cv-991, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

183080 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 19, 2016

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7890 Filed 02/04/21 Page 15 of 42
x

STATEMENTS OF ISSUES PRESENTED

SHOULD THE COURT PRECLUDE THE USE OF THE 

MENTAL HEALTH VIDEO SURVEILLANCE FOR 

THE PURPOSE OF MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS/OPINION?

DEFENDANTS STATE: YES.

PLAINTIFF STATES: NO.

SHOULD THE COURT PRECLUDE DR. 

PIETRANGELO FROM OFFERING A MEDICAL 

OPINION BASED ON HER REVIEW OF THE VIDEO 

FOOTAGE PURSUANT TO DAUBERT AND FED. R. 

EVID. 702?

DEFENDANTS STATE: YES.

PLAINTIFF STATES: NO.

IF THIS COURT ALLOWS PLAINTIFF TO ADD A 

VIDEO FORENSIC EXPERT TO AUTHENTICATE 

THE ADMISSION OF THE VIDEO FOR THE 

PURPOSE OF MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS/OPINION, 

SHOULD THE COURT PERMIT DEFENDANTS TO 

ADD A VIDEO FORENSIC EXPERT TO OPINE ON 

THE AUTHENTICITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE 

VIDEO?

DEFENDANTS STATE: YES.

PLAINTIFF STATES: NO.

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7891 Filed 02/04/21 Page 16 of 42
xi

CONTROLLING/APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY FOR RELIEF SOUGHT

Authentication is a pre-requisite to the admissibility of all evidence. Fed. R. 

Evid. 901(a). A witness must authenticate a piece of evidence in a manner “sufficient 

to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims.” Fed. 

R. Evid. 901. One way to authenticate a document is by offering testimony of a 

witness with knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1); Harlamert v. World Finer Foods,

Inc., 489 F.3d 767, 773 (6th Cir. 2007) (authentication “requires some type of 

testimony showing that the document is what the party offering it says it is”).

In applying the balancing test under Fed. R. Evid. 403, the court states that 

“[r]elevance is a fairly course filter, and when evidence is minimally relevant, it is 

likely to be minimally probative as well. Moreover, a decision regarding probative 

value must be influenced by the availability of other sources of evidence on the point 

in question.” U.S. v. Wiggan, 700 F.3d 1204, 1213 (2012) (See Old Chief v. United 

States, 519 U.S. 172, 182-85; 117 S.Ct. 644, 651-52; 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997); 

United States v. Awadallah, 436 F.3d 125, 132(2d Cir. 2006). Further, “[w]here the 

evidence is of very slight (if any) probative value, it’s an abuse of discretion to admit 

it if there’s even a modest likelihood of unfair prejudice or a small risk of misleading 

the jury.” U.S. v. Wiggan, 700 F.3d 1204, 1213 (2012) (citing United States v. Hitt, 

981 F.2d 422, 424 (9th Cir. 1992)).

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993)

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7892 Filed 02/04/21 Page 17 of 42
xii

requires that this Court, “ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence 

admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.”

Under the Daubert standard, the factors that may be considered in determining 

whether the methodology is valid are: (1) whether the theory or technique in question 

can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and 

publication; (3) its known or potential error rate; (4) the existence and maintenance 

of standards controlling its operation; and (5) whether it has attracted widespread 

acceptance within a relevant scientific community.

“The task for the district court in deciding whether an expert's opinion is 

reliable is not to determine whether it is correct, but rather to determine whether it 

rests upon a reliable foundation, as opposed to, say, unsupported speculation.” In re 

Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517, 529-530 (6th Cir. 2008), citing Fed. R. 

Evid. 702.

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7893 Filed 02/04/21 Page 18 of 42
1

I. RELEVANT FACTUAL HISTORY

Plaintiff’s theory is the CCS Defendants provided inadequate medical care in 

allegedly failing to treat Mr. Stojcevski for a benzodiazepine withdrawal resulting 

in dehydration and, ultimately, his death. (ECF No. 1). This theory is based in part 

on the findings documented by the Medical Examiner, Dr. Mary Pietrangelo, whose 

“final diagnosis” concluded acute withdrawal from chronic benzodiazepine, 

methadone, and opiate medications; dehydration with hypernatremia; and 

“seizure/seizure-like” activity. (Exhibit A). Dr. Pietrangelo’s conclusion that Mr. 

Stojcevski suffered acute withdrawal from chronic benzodiazepine, methadone, and 

opiate medications was based on her observation that Mr. Stojcevksi appeared to 

display “seizure-like” activity when reviewing the Mental Health video surveillance 

footage of Mr. Stojcevski’s jail cell. (Exhibit B, p. 47:11-25). This video

documented his activity while he was housed in Macomb County Jail’s high 

observation unit from June 11, 2014 to June 27, 2014. The seizure-like activity is 

the reason why she believes Mr. Stojcevski suffered from acute withdrawal. (Id.).

However, Dr. Pietrangelo admits she cannot opine with certainty that Mr. Stojcevski 

experienced seizures, which is why she describes Mr. Stojcevski displayed “seizurelike” activity. (Id. at p. 92:6-16).

There is no other corroborating evidence to support Mr. Stojcevski suffered 

from seizures while he was housed in Macomb County Jail’s high observation unit.

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7894 Filed 02/04/21 Page 19 of 42
2

Deputy Paul Harrison testified that Mr. Stojcevski was seen “shaking,” but could not 

tell if it was a seizure. (Exhibit C, p. 54:7-24). The following deputies either 

specifically denied Mr. Stojcevski suffered seizures or don’t remember anything out 

of the ordinary regarding Mr. Stojcevski’s behavior:

• Morgan Cooney (Exhibit D, p. 28:13-15);

• Brian Pingilley (Exhibit E, pp. 20:24-21:1);

• David White (Exhibit F, p. 13:14-17);

• Mitchell Blount (Exhibit G, p. 8:15-22);

• Larry James (Exhibit H, pp. 30:22-31:3);

• Walter Oxley (Exhibit I, pp. 61:21-62:1);

• John Talos (Exhibit J, p. 86:5-9);

• Steven Vaneenoo (Exhibit K, p. 20:9-14).

Importantly, Mr. Stojcevski’s treating provider, Defendant Dr. Lawrence Sherman,

performed a neurological examination and determined he was not experiencing

seizures. (Exhibit L, pp. 147:20-23; 148:21-24). Mr. Stojcevski was noted to have 

rapid eye fluttering (not rapid eye movement) (Id. at pp. 134:18-135:12), did not 

display any hallmark signs of a seizure (Id. at p. 146:5-8), nor did he present with 

any signs or symptoms that would suggest he had a propensity for seizures. (Id. at 

pp. 142:25-143:3; 145:17-22). Dr. Sherman’s medical opinion was that Mr. 

Stojcevski was “feigning” seizures. (Id. at pp. 147:20-23; 148:21-24).

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7895 Filed 02/04/21 Page 20 of 42
3

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“The Federal Rules of Evidence, the Federal Rules of Criminal and Civil 

Procedure and interpretive rulings of the Supreme Court and this court all encourage, 

and in some cases require, parties and the court to utilize extensive pretrial 

procedures — including motions in limine – in order to narrow the issues remaining 

for trial and to minimize disruptions at trial.” United States v. Brawner, 173 F.3d 

966, 970 (6th Cir. 1999). District courts have broad discretion over matters involving 

the admissibility of evidence at trial. United States v. Seago, 930 F.2d 482, 494 (6th 

Cir. 1991).

III. LEGAL ARGUMENT

There are a handful of evidentiary barricades obstructing the admission of the 

video surveillance footage and its use for a medical diagnosis. First, this video 

cannot be properly authenticated. Plaintiff will need to retain a video forensic expert 

to introduce this video into evidence.

Secondly, the relevant peer reviewed literature, opinions of the relevant expert 

community, and case studies demonstrate this video surveillance system cannot be 

a reliable foundation for a medical opinion or diagnosis. The low-quality recording 

system generates distorted and “jerky” motions that do not otherwise exist in “realtime.” For this reason, it may appear Mr. Stojcevski displayed “seizure-like” activity 

when in fact he demonstrated normal behavior. Without any corroborating evidence, 

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7896 Filed 02/04/21 Page 21 of 42
4

it would be highly prejudicial and misleading should the distorted video provide any 

basis for a medical diagnosis.

Third, Dr. Pietrangelo’s opinion that Mr. Stojcevski suffered from seizurelike activity and therefore died of a withdrawal must be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 

702. She lacks the requisite qualifications to formulate a medical opinion based on 

a low-quality video, has no experience in diagnosing seizure using video technology, 

and the relevant literature, case studies, and expert community opine that Dr. 

Pietrangelo’s methodology in formulating her opinion is unreliable. This video is 

not a trustworthy basis for a medical diagnosis, and especially a seizure diagnosis.

Lastly, if this Court allows Plaintiff to add an expert to authenticate this video 

for introduction into evidence, Defendants request the same relief. 

A. Discussion Of The Unreliability Of The Video Footage.

The video surveillance footage in question was recorded by the Pelco 

DX8116- 250 video recording system. Macomb County Jail set this system at a 

maximum frame rate of seven (7) frames per second (“fps”) with a resolution of 

704x480 on motion, and one (1) fps with a resolution of 704x480 constant recording. 

(Exhibit M, p. 2). This is a motion-recorded device, meaning the mode alters the 

camera to trigger recording only during a set time block once a motion event is 

detected in the camera’s predefined motion field. (Id.). This device is prompted by 

a twenty percent (20%) change of image contrast. Thus, the camera is set to record 

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7897 Filed 02/04/21 Page 22 of 42
5

at seven (7) fps when motion event is detected and continuously records at one (1)

fps when a motion event is not detected.

A video is a collection of still pictures, taken at a given rate. The DX8100 

model will export video so it can be played back in real time (thirty (30) fps) for the 

same length of time as the original recording. (Exhibit N, p. 107). For example, if 

the video was recorded at one (1) fps, the DX8100 will insert twenty-nine (29) null 

frames for every one (1) frame of actual video. (Id.) Thus, if the motion was recorded 

at seven (7) fps, there remains twenty-three (23) missing frames out of thirty (30)

and only 23.33% of the video was captured. Likewise, a recording at one (1) fps only 

captures .03% of the video. The missing frames results in distorted, abrupt, and 

“jerky” movements during the recorded playback as opposed to the fluid real-time

motions intended to be captured. In sum, videos monitoring systems with higher 

frame rates and resolution capture fluid and more accurate motions.

A peer-reviewed article titled, “To Catch a Thief – You Need at Least 8 

Frames Per Second: The impact of frame rates on user performance in a CCTV 

detection task,” discusses the need for a least eight (8) fps to for event detection. 

(Exhibit O, p. 941). This is based on a case study involving eighty (80) participants 

who viewed thirty-two (32) video scenes at one (1), six (6), eight (8), and twelve 

(12) fps. (Id.) The task required observers to determine if one of three possible events 

occurred:

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7898 Filed 02/04/21 Page 23 of 42
6

a) A person wearing a rucksack stops and asks a passer-by what time it is;

b) A person steals something from the passer-by who is wearing a rucksack;1 or 

c) A person walking behind the rucksack carrier attempts to steal something 

from him but does not succeed.

(Id. at p. 942). The results showed that when the frame rate was lowered from eight 

(8) fps, the number of correct detections and task confidence decreased significantly. 

(Id. at pp. 943-944).

To contextualize recording technology, sport action cameras typically capture 

up to two hundred forty (240) fps to determine whether an athlete simply “steps out 

of bounds.” (Exhibit P, p. 57). The article titled “High Speed Cameras for Motion 

Analysis in Sports Science,” addresses the need for higher frame rates to capture fastmoving objects (greater than two hundred forty (240) fps). (Id.) The lowest frame 

rate available in sports science is twenty-four (24) fps. (Id.) This is used for mainly 

for notational analysis only, and it is discussed that this frame rate is too low to 

capture moving objects – specifically throwing and hitting balls. (Id.) However, even 

the average smartphone captures up to one hundred twenty (120) fps with highdefinition formats, such as 1280x720. (Id.).

Literature surrounding the increase in use of telemedicine technology 

addresses the need for a higher frame rates, even just to conduct a physical exam. A 

1 This was the correct scenario. (Exhibit O at p. 942).

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7899 Filed 02/04/21 Page 24 of 42
7

peer-reviewed article titled, “Delivering Diagnostic Quality Video Over Mobile 

Wireless Networks for Telemedicine,” discussed that thirty (30) fps provides the 

high-quality necessary for diagnosis and treatment of patients, as well as confidence 

among treating doctors. (Exhibit Q, p. 2). In 2014, when the video of Mr. Stojcevski 

was recorded, the American Telemedicine Association guidelines for telehealth 

services recommended at least 640x480 resolution at thirty (30) fps. (Exhibit R, p. 

9). Higher frame rates for telemedicine are also generally accepted by the relevant 

expert community. (Exhibit S

2

). The University of Missouri School of Medicine’s 

telemedicine assistance documents outlines that the recommended video frame rate 

for telemedicine is at least thirty (30) fps. (Id. at p. 334). The assistance documents 

outline that fifteen (15) fps “tends to look a little jerky,” while the frame rate of thirty 

(30) fps makes for a smoother picture “as long as there is no broad, sudden, or 

exaggerated changes/movement taking place on the screen.” (Id. at p. 335). For the 

most accurate picture, the recommended frame rate is sixty (60) fps. (Id.).

Correctional facilities are also looking to increase their frame rates. The 

article, “Implementing Telemedicine in Correctional Facilities,” states that the 

appropriate frame rate is twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) fps. This is considered “full 

motion” and most broad-cast video operates at this rate. A frame rate of fifteen (15)

2 Defendants have only included the relative sections cited for Exhibit S due to its

size. Defendants are willing to produce the entire exhibit should the Court or Plaintiff 

request it.

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7900 Filed 02/04/21 Page 25 of 42
8

fps is noted to be “noticeably jerky.” This article warns that slower frame rates may 

be inadequate for observing and analyzing gait and motion. (Exhibit T, p. 68).

It is important to note that Dr. Pietrangelo testified that an EEG is necessary 

to definitively diagnose seizures (Exhibit B, p. 92:9-10); however, the peerreviewed literature demonstrates that a frame rate of at least twenty-five (25) per

second is necessary for a diagnosis. (Exhibit U). Peer-reviewed literature 

emphasizes the use of increased frames per second when observing and diagnosing 

seizure activity. (Exhibit V, p. 4). Typically, thirty (30) frames per second are used 

for video-EEG technology. (Exhibit W, p. 6; Exhibit X, p. 3). The recent literature, 

however, suggests that frame rates of at least one hundred (100) fps with a resolution 

of full-HD frames (1920x1080) should be required to accurately detect seizures on 

a patient. (Exhibit U).

In sum, the relevant literature demonstrates that one (1) and seven (7) fps is 

egregiously low-quality and will lead to the distortion of real-time action and “jerky” 

movements. This evidence is unreliable and should be excluded.

B. This Video Cannot Be Authenticated.

Authentication is a pre-requisite to the admissibility of all evidence. Fed. R. 

Evid. 901(a). A witness must authenticate a piece of evidence in a manner “sufficient 

to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims.” Fed. 

R. Evid. 901. One way to authenticate a document is by offering testimony of a 

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7901 Filed 02/04/21 Page 26 of 42
9

witness with knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1); Harlamert v. World Finer Foods, 

Inc., 489 F.3d 767, 773 (6th Cir. 2007) (authentication “requires some type of 

testimony showing that the document is what the party offering it says it is”). 

The video recordings presented by Macomb County Jail are played back in 

actual time on security monitors, while also saving a copy of the recording on the 

system. Datanet Systems, Inc., maintains the video recorders, while the actual 

cameras are maintained by "Technical Services". (Exhibit M, p. 3). In the event that 

the actual timed recordings were not viewed by an individual, there may be 

authentication issues in reporting differences between the copy and original videos 

at trial. See Zerega Ave. Realty Corp. v. Hornbeck Offshore Transp., LLC, 571 F.3d 

206, 214 (2d Cir. 2009) (photographs were properly excluded for lack of foundation 

when there was no testimony that they were an accurate portrayal of the subject 

contained in the photographs). 

Further, with technological advancements in video digitalizing systems, it is 

imperative that courts begin to take note of distortions that take place when 

digitalizing a video such as the one in this case. See Can Juries Really Believe What 

They See? New Foundational Requirements for the Authentication of Digital 

Images. (2002) 10 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 267. (“There are significant differences, 

however, between traditional photographs and digital images that may necessitate 

different evidentiary treatment than that normally given to traditional photographs. 

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7902 Filed 02/04/21 Page 27 of 42
10

The digital image creation process and the susceptibility of digital images to 

manipulation make digital images sufficiently different from photographs to 

necessitate different treatment under the Federal Rules of Evidence.”):

It is impossible to determine which image is a firstgeneration image and is therefore the ‘original.’ The lack 

of an ‘original’ for comparison with the offered image 

reduces the opportunity to verify that the image has not 

been altered or has only been altered in an acceptable 

manner, thereby increasing the likelihood that changes 

will not be discovered unless the proponent of the image 

reveals them.

Id.

If an individual cannot attest to the original copy of the video or did not 

physically witness the Decedent seizing in his cell, the video is at risk. Here, none 

of the deputies or other witnesses can verify Mr. Stojcevski suffered any seizures. 

(See Exhibits C-L).

This lack of foundation is specifically disturbing in relationship to the frame 

rates of the video in question. The video may have been recorded between only one 

(1) fps and seven (7) fps, as opposed to the thirty (30) fps typical for video cameras. 

As discussed above, the low frame rate means continuity is missing from the clips.

Those missing spaces are crucial in determining whether a “jerky” motion was 

actually a seizure or a normal shift in body weight.

Without a proper chain of custody and considering the antiquity of the Pelco 

system that captured the pertinent events, there remains the ability to affect the image 

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7903 Filed 02/04/21 Page 28 of 42
11

through everchanging technical developments both at the time the Video was made 

and throughout its possession by Datanet Systems, Inc., technical services, and 

Plaintiff.

Based upon the foregoing, there is no foundation of accuracy and fairness of 

the video that would allow its admission as evidence in this matter. Plaintiff would 

need to add a video forensic expert to assess the chain of custody, reliability, and 

authentication issues for it to be admissible. 

C. This Video Will Mislead The Jury.

The Court should exclude the video depicting Mr. Stojcevski allegedly 

seizing because the danger that the jury will be confused and misled substantially 

outweighs the value of the evidence itself under the balancing test under Fed. R. 

Evid. 403. A court may exclude relevant evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 

403 "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair 

prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or 

needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 403. In applying the 

balancing test, the court states that “[r]elevance is a fairly course filter, and when 

evidence is minimally relevant, it is likely to be minimally probative as well. 

Moreover, a decision regarding probative value must be influenced by the 

availability of other sources of evidence on the point in question.” U.S. v. Wiggan, 

700 F.3d 1204, 1213 (2012) (See Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 182-85;

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7904 Filed 02/04/21 Page 29 of 42
12

117 S. Ct. 644, 651-52; 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997); United States v. Awadallah, 436 

F.3d 125, 132 (2d Cir. 2006). Evidentiary rulings are made subject to the district 

court's sound discretion. Frye v. CSX Trans., Inc., 933 F.3d 591, 598 (6th Cir. 2019); 

see also Paschal v. Flagstar Bank, 295 F.3d 565, 576 (6th Cir. 2002) ("In reviewing 

the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion, the appellate court must view the

evidence in the light most favorable to its proponent, giving the evidence its 

maximum reasonable probative force and its minimum reasonable prejudicial 

value.").

The “jerky”/“twitchy” movements caused by the low-quality surveillance 

videos will mislead and confuse the jury into mischaracterizing the distorted motions 

as “seizures” despite the lack of scientific corroborating evidence to this medical 

condition. The jury will give this evidence considerable weight because the medical 

examiner partially based her opinion on his video, despite her caveat that she cannot 

definitively diagnose the movement she saw as a seizure. However, it would be 

impossible to un-ring that bell.

In Martin v. Patterson, the Court excluded relevant video evidence of the 

event in question due to its incomplete nature. Martin v. Patterson, No. 5:12-117, 

2014 WL 769173, *4 (E.D.Ky. Feb. 25, 2014). In Martin, the Plaintiff was arrested, 

further accused of resisting arrest, and subsequently alleged that the arresting officer 

used excessive force against Plaintiff during Plaintiff’s arrest. Id. The video in 

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7905 Filed 02/04/21 Page 30 of 42
13

question was a series of videos compiled from cameras located around the premises 

of the store. Id. at *11. The cameras were motion-activated, thus capturing the event 

in question only when the parties stepped into view of a particular camera. Id. This 

resulted in portions of the event in question not being captured on the video at all. 

Id. For example, there existed a forty (40) second gap between the first and second 

videos. Id. The Court stated that:

[t]he problem with this footage is not simply that it has a 

portion of it missing, but that the missing portion is 

crucial to the particular claims in this case. [A]n 

excessive force case requires analyzing [Defendant’s] use 

of force in light of the totality of the circumstances to 

determine if it was reasonable. By the time the video 

begins, [Defendant’s] use of force had already escalated in 

response to [Plaintiff’s] unseen resistance. Thus, the video 

has limited probative value- if any at all- because a viewer 

is unable to weigh [Defendant’s] actions in light of the offcamera resistance. Moreover, the compelling nature of 

pictographic evidence such as video footage is 

substantially likely to mislead and confuse a jury as it 

displays only a portion of the circumstances to the 

exclusion of other highly relevant details.

Id. at *11-13 (emphasis added).

Accordingly, the Court excluded the video, as the danger of misleading and 

confusing the jury substantially outweighed the value of the video evidence. Id. at 

*13.

A Florida court in State v. Muro found for a nanny who was accused of 

abusing a child. The evidence incriminating her was a jerky home surveillance video 

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7906 Filed 02/04/21 Page 31 of 42
14

that portrayed the defendant lifting the child into the air and slamming him down. 

State v. Muro, 909 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Videotape experts, one hired by 

the state and one by the defense, concluded that the abrupt movements on the tape 

could be attributed to missing frames. Id. at 449. The "nanny cams" captured no 

more than seven point five (7.5) frames per second, as opposed to the thirty (30)

frames per second typically captured by video cameras. Id. The video was 

suppressed in the circuit court (Id. at 451-52); however, the suppression order was 

reversed in the 4th district of appeals (Id. at 455). Ultimately, the jury found for the 

nanny because such jerking movements could be seen as the nanny’s movements or 

a faulty frame. 

In Powell v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 4 Ariz. App. 172, 418 P.2d 602, 610 

(Ariz. Ct. App. 1966), rev'd on other grounds, 102 Ariz. 11, 423 P.2d 348 (Ariz. 

1967), the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that a "speeded up" motion picture should 

not have been admitted in a workers' compensation case because it unfairly portrayed 

the claimant as having worked at a faster rate of speed than had been the actual case. 

Similarly, in Utley v. Heckinger, 235 Ark. 780, 362 S.W.2d 13, 17 (Ark. 

1962), a case involving a collision between an automobile, a wrecker, and a truck, 

the Arkansas Supreme Court concluded that the jury should not have been shown a 

portion of a motion picture which appeared to depict the automobile driver as 

walking faster than she had actually walked.

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7907 Filed 02/04/21 Page 32 of 42
15

The instant case is most analogous to Martin and Muro in that the video does 

not completely portray the events of the incident in question, which is crucial to the

particular claims in this case, and it should be precluded for a basis of a medical 

diagnosis. Courts have recognized that when a video is shown of an event to the jury 

that a jury will accept the video as the whole truth. See, e.g., United States v. Martin, 

746 F.2d 964, 972 (3d Cir. 1984) (citation omitted) (“Eyewitness testimony is often 

dramatic and convincing, but its effectiveness and convincing power are almost 

negligible in comparison with a film or videotape of actual events. When the 

videotape shows a crime actually being committed, it simply leaves nothing more to 

be said.”).

Therefore, Defendants will be manifestly prejudiced should the distorted 

images of the video hit the jury’s eyes without any qualification or special instruction 

to identify the movements seen are not seizures. Otherwise, the jury would be 

introduced to improper foundational evidence for an unsubstantiated medical 

opinion.

D. There Are No Other Corroborating Sources of That Mr. Stojcevski 

Experienced Seizures.

The admission of this video for a medical diagnosis is especially problematic 

given there is no corroborating evidence to otherwise support the theory that Mr. 

Stojcevski experienced seizures while he was incarcerated during the time incident 

in question. Without other corroborating evidence to diagnose a seizure, this video 

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7908 Filed 02/04/21 Page 33 of 42
16

should be excluded from such purpose. See Hopper v. Plummer, 887 F.3d 744, 749 

n.2 (6th Cir. 2018) (A video recorded at four (4) fps necessitated the support by other 

record evidence, including deposition testimony, for factual depiction); United 

States v. Parker, No. 3:10-CR-133, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29611, at *34 n.5 (E.D. 

Tenn. Feb. 14, 2011) (The officer who possessed the incomplete “in-car video” 

documenting the pursuit of the defendant required the officer’s testimony for recount 

of the factual events). (Exhibit Y).

As discussed above, Dr. Pietrangelo’s hypothesis that Mr. Stojcevski’s demise 

was caused by dehydration stemming from a possible benzodiazepine, methadone, 

and opiate withdrawal is solely based on the “seizure-like” activity he displayed. 

(Exhibit B, p. 92:6-16). Dr. Pietrangelo testified this could only be confirmed by 

way of an EEG diagnostic test. (Id. at p. 92:9-10). She could not point to any other 

signs or symptoms that support this theory. Moreover, Defendant Dr. Sherman 

opined that Mr. Stojecvksi was “feigning” a seizure based on his “full and thorough” 

evaluation of the patient, which included a neurological examination. (Exhibit L, 

pp. 147:20-23; 148:21-24). Mr. Stojcevski was noted to have rapid eye fluttering 

(not rapid eye movement) (Id. at pp. 134:18-135:12), did not display any hallmark 

signs of a seizure (Id. at p. 146:5-8), nor did he present with any signs or symptoms 

that would suggest he had a propensity for seizures. (Id. at pp. 142:25-143:3;

145:17-22).

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7909 Filed 02/04/21 Page 34 of 42
17

Thus, without any corroborating evidence necessary to support the possible 

events observed in this incomplete video, it would be completely misleading should 

the video be presented to the jury as gospel.

E. Dr. Pietrangelo’s Opinion Must Be Precluded Because It Is Based On 

The Distorted Video, Which Lacks the Reliability Standards Set Forth 

In Daubert.

Dr. Pietrangelo’s opinion that Mr. Stojcevski suffered from “seizure-like 

activity” and therefore died of a benzodiazepine withdrawal must be excluded. The 

base of this opinion is the unreliable video footage, which simply does not meet the 

rigorous reliability standards set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 702, Daubert v. Merrell Dow 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,

526 U.S. 137; 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999) The relevant literature, case studies, and expert 

community reject the use of this video as a reliable foundation. Without any 

additional scientific corroborating evidence, Dr. Pietrangelo’s opinion must be 

excluded.

This Court has the duty to be the gatekeeper as to scientific evidence, which 

requires this Court to assess whether the medical opinions are actually supported by 

science and not just accept the opinions because of the nature of the expert’s 

qualifications: “The trial court's gatekeeping function requires more than 

simply taking the expert's word for it. [A court being] presented with only the 

experts' qualifications, their conclusions and their assurances of reliability [is 

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7910 Filed 02/04/21 Page 35 of 42
18

not enough under Daubert].” Thomas v. City of Chattanooga, 398 F.3d 426, 432 

(6th Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). Further, Fed. R. Evid. 702 provides:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, 

skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the 

form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert's 

scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will 

help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to 

determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on 

sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of 

reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has 

reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of 

the case.

Thus, an expert’s opinion that is based upon speculation is not admissible, 

because “the courtroom is not the place for scientific guesswork, even of the inspired 

sort.” Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 620 F.3d 665, 670-672 (6th Cir. 2010).

Under Daubert, the "gatekeeping" function, supra, 509 U.S. at 597, consists 

of three (3) steps. First, it must be determined whether the witness is qualified as an 

expert. “When making a preliminary finding regarding an expert's qualifications 

under Fed. R. Evid. 104(a), the court is to examine ‘not the qualifications of a witness 

in the abstract, but whether those qualifications provide a foundation for a witness 

to answer a specific question.’” Smelser v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 105 F.3d 299, 

303 (6th Cir. 1997) (quoting Berry v. City of Detroit, 25 F.3d 1342, 1351 (6th Cir. 

1994) (emphasis added)). Second, it must be determined whether the testimony is 

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7911 Filed 02/04/21 Page 36 of 42
19

reliable. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590. The Court in Daubert listed several factors 

for consideration in assessing the reliability of scientific testimony, including:

▪ Whether a "theory or technique . . . can be (and has 

been) tested";

▪ Whether it "has been subjected to peer review and 

publication";

▪ Whether, in respect to a particular technique, there is a 

high "known or potential rate of error" and whether 

there are "standards controlling the technique's 

operation"; and

▪ Whether the theory or technique enjoys "general 

acceptance" within a "relevant scientific community."

Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 149-150 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-594). The focus 

must be on the principles and methodologies on which the expert's opinion is based, 

and not on the merits of the expert's conclusions. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594-595 n. 

12; U.S. v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 556 (6th Cir. 1993) (district courts “are not to be 

concerned with the reliability of the conclusions generated by valid methods, 

principles and reasoning.”). Finally, this Court must determine whether the expert's 

reasoning or methodology properly applies to the facts at issue: i.e., whether the 

opinion is relevant. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591-593. To be relevant, the testimony 

must “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in 

issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. This relevance requirement ensures that there is a “fit” 

between the testimony and the issue to be resolved at trial. Bonds, 12 F.3d at 555.

First, Dr. Pietrangelo lacks the appropriate qualifications to opine on whether 

Mr. Stojcevski suffered seizures during his incarceration. She is not a video forensic 

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7912 Filed 02/04/21 Page 37 of 42
20

expert, has no background in video forensics, and has no experience reviewing and 

assessing video recordings for a medical diagnosis. (Exhibit B pp. 54:9-12; 88:4-

89:19). She cannot determine whether the “jerkiness” in the video was “seizure-like 

activity” or the result of missing frames. Secondly, her opinion is unreliable. The 

articles cited to above discuss that a video recording at one (1) to seven (7) frames 

per second is not the requisite quality to make a conclusive medical diagnosis. All 

the relevant peer-reviewed literature, case studies, guidelines, and relevant expert 

community demonstrate that at least twenty-five (25) to sixty (60) fps are necessary 

to properly formulate a medical diagnosis. For video-EEG and seizure diagnosis, 

recent literature recommends at least one hundred (100) fps. Thus, Dr. Pietrangelo’s 

opinion does not apply a reliable scientific methodology to the facts at hand. Her 

opinion is speculative at best. Lastly, Dr. Pietrangelo’s opinion does not 

appropriately apply the facts to the present matter and cannot assist a jury in 

determining whether the “jerkiness” of the video is a seizure or poor frame quality.

She assumes the movements of the video represent “seizure-like” activity, but 

admittedly cannot opine with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Mr. 

Stojcevski suffered from seizures. This is especially problematic because there is no 

other scientific corroborating evidence to support her opinion that Mr. Stojcevski 

suffered seizures. Her opinion that Mr. Stojcevski suffered from “seizure-like and 

therefore died of a benzodiazepine withdrawal must therefore be excluded under 

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7913 Filed 02/04/21 Page 38 of 42
21

Fed. R. Evid. 702, or a Daubert hearing is warranted to explore the basis of such 

opinion.

F. Defendants Request Mutual Relief To Add A Video Forensic Expert.

Should this Court allow Plaintiff to add a video forensic expert to satisfy the 

authenticity pre-requisite for its admission, then CCS Defendants request the same 

relief to add a video forensic expert. Video forensic experts are needed to

authenticate the video and aid the jury in interpreting contents of the video that are 

“otherwise unclear”: 

The video was not a continuous stream. Time passes 

between frames. Due to the low rate of frames per second, 

a critical eye is needed to decipher what changes between

frames mean given the increment of time. This is true for 

events occurring in a single frame (e.g., the taser being 

applied). An ability to analyze "motion blur" in the picture 

gives a viewer information as to speed and timing. Glaza's 

testimony in this regard aided the jury in interpreting 

contents of the video that were otherwise unclear.

Jennings v. Fuller, No. 13-13308, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77945, at *30 (E.D. Mich.

May 23, 2017) (Exhibit Z).

The rules of civil procedure afford district courts broad authority and 

discretion to manage the discovery process in cases and control their dockets. Marie 

v. American Red Cross, 771 F.3d 344, 366 (6th Cir. 2014). Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)

requires district courts to issue a scheduling order in each case. And Rule 16(b)(4)

states that the scheduling order may be modified "only for good cause and with the 

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7914 Filed 02/04/21 Page 39 of 42
22

judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) prohibits parties from using a witness who 

has not been identified unless the failure was "substantially justified or is harmless." 

The two rules impose different burdens on the moving party. The "primary 

measure" for establishing good cause to amend the scheduling order under Rule 

16(b) is the "moving party's diligence in attempting to meet the case management 

order's requirements." Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002)

(citation omitted). Courts should also consider possible prejudice to the party 

opposing the modification. Id. The test in Rule 37(c) is whether the moving party 

has offered a "reasonable explanation" for why it did not comply with the disclosure 

requirements or the mistake was harmless. Bessemer & Lake Erie R.R. Co. v. Seaway 

Marine Transport, 596 F.3d 357, 370 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Vance v. United 

States, 182 F.3d 920 (6th Cir. 1999) (unpublished table opinion)).

This video cannot be introduced into evidence without proper authentication. 

If Plaintiff wishes to introduce this video, then she will need to authenticate it using 

a video forensic expert. Defendants are simply requesting the same relief.

Defendants have been diligently pursuing this lawsuit and are requesting to add an 

expert in response to the admissibility issues stemming from the evidence Plaintiff 

wishes to show the jury.

Moreover, the stay in this case was lifted in October 2020. Defendants are 

seeking leave to add a new expert only three (3) months later after this stay has been 

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7915 Filed 02/04/21 Page 40 of 42
23

lifted, and in response to admissibility issues regarding evidence for trial. District 

courts have found requesting such relief in less than four (4) months after a stay has 

been lifted is a reasonable time. Carlson v. Fewins, No. 1:08-cv-991, 2016 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 183080, at *3-4 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 19, 2016) (Exhibit AA). Thus, this motion 

is substantially justified.

IV. CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Defendants CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, L.L.C.; 

MONICA CUENY; CHANTALLE BROCK; MICAL BEY-SHELLY; VICKY 

BERTRAM; LAWRENCE SHERMAN, M.D.; by and through their counsel, 

CHAPMAN LAW GROUP, respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an 

order with the following conditions:

1. Preclude the use of the surveillance videos; and

2. Preclude Dr. Pietrangelo’s opinion that Mr. Stojcevski suffered “seizurelike activity” and therefore died from withdrawals under Fed. R. Evid. 702, 

or order a Daubert hearing to explore the basis of such opinion.

Alternatively, should this Court deny this motion and allow Plaintiff to add a video 

forensic expert to authenticate the video, Defendants respectfully request this 

Honorable Court enter a mutual order and allow Defendants to also add a forensic 

video expert to opine on the authenticity and reliability of the surveillance video.

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7916 Filed 02/04/21 Page 41 of 42
24

Respectfully submitted,

CHAPMAN LAW GROUP

Dated: February 4, 2021 /s/ Madeline R. Young

Ronald W. Chapman Sr., M.P.A., 

LL.M. (P37603)

Madeline R. Young (P82140)

Attorney for the CCS Defendants 

1441 West Long Lake Rd., Suite 310

Troy, MI 48098

(248) 644-6326

rchapman@chapmanlawgroup.com

myoung@chapmanlawgroup.com

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 4, 2021 I presented the 

foregoing paper to the Clerk of the Court for filing and 

uploading to the ECF system, which will send notification 

of such filing to the attorneys of record listed herein and I 

hereby certify that I have mailed by US Postal Service the 

document to the involved non participants.

/s/ Madeline R. Young

Madeline R. Young (P82140)

1441 West Long Lake Rd., Suite 310

Troy, MI 48098

(248) 644-6326

myoung@chapmanlawgroup.com

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 213, PageID.7917 Filed 02/04/21 Page 42 of 42