Prompt library
Medical record review prompts for expert witnesses
Medical record review prompts for expert witnesses build the opinion basis table and, in the same pass, the contrary evidence inventory. Run them as a pair and compare the lengths. A short contrary list is usually a prompt problem rather than a record that happens to agree with you.
The prompts
Run these after the spine prompts marked priority above. Placeholders in angle brackets need filling in.
Opinion basis table
Contrary evidence inventory
Run E1 and E2 together, always, and compare their lengths. E1 and E2 are a matched pair, and an E2 that is much shorter than E1 is more likely a prompt problem than a record that happens to agree with you.
Strongest challenge
Opposing expert basis
The third sentence is where this earns its place. An asserted basis with no record behind it is the most useful thing you can find in an opposing report.
Unaddressed record check
Run against the opposing report. Then run it against your own, before it is final.
Methodology support
This is the admissibility prompt. Every flagged inferential step is a question you will be asked.
Deposition exposure
Lane failure mode: the fabricated citation, at maximum cost. An expert report is the worst possible place for failure mode 5.1. Every citation in a report gets Tier 1 verification, opened and read at the page, with no sampling. A quotation you have not personally confirmed is a representation you cannot make.
Professional responsibility. Two federal provisions bear on this directly.
Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires a written report containing, among other things, "a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them" and "the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them." Whether an AI-assisted review process falls inside "facts or data considered" is not settled, and it is a question for your retaining counsel rather than for you. What is settled is that the underlying records are facts or data considered, and they are disclosable whether a machine or a clerk pulled them.
Rule 702, as amended in 2023, is the sharper instrument. The proponent must now demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that each requirement is met, which the amendment makes clear is a Rule 104(a) admissibility question rather than a matter of weight for the jury. Two of the four requirements land on record review: subsection (b), that the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, and subsection (d), that the opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
The practical consequence is that an unverified citation is not a tidiness problem. It is a defect in the "sufficient facts or data" showing, raised at a stage where the court decides rather than the jury. This is why E6 exists and why this lane carries a Tier 1, every-citation, no-sampling rule.
The defensible posture is unchanged and simple to state: the opinion is yours, every record supporting it was verified at the source by you, and you can describe how you reviewed the file. State practice varies, and not every state follows the amended federal standard.
Lane failure mode: the fabricated citation, at maximum cost
An expert report is the worst possible place for failure mode 5.1. Every citation in a report gets Tier 1 verification, opened and read at the page, with no sampling. A quotation you have not personally confirmed is a representation you cannot make.
Professional responsibility
Two federal provisions bear on this directly.
Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires a written report containing, among other things, "a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them" and "the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them." Whether an AI-assisted review process falls inside "facts or data considered" is not settled, and it is a question for your retaining counsel rather than for you. What is settled is that the underlying records are facts or data considered, and they are disclosable whether a machine or a clerk pulled them.
Rule 702, as amended in 2023, is the sharper instrument. The proponent must now demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that each requirement is met, which the amendment makes clear is a Rule 104(a) admissibility question rather than a matter of weight for the jury. Two of the four requirements land on record review: subsection (b), that the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, and subsection (d), that the opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
The practical consequence is that an unverified citation is not a tidiness problem. It is a defect in the "sufficient facts or data" showing, raised at a stage where the court decides rather than the jury. This is why E6 exists and why this lane carries a Tier 1, every-citation, no-sampling rule.
The defensible posture is unchanged and simple to state: the opinion is yours, every record supporting it was verified at the source by you, and you can describe how you reviewed the file. State practice varies, and not every state follows the amended federal standard.
Issues to raise, not answers. Requirements vary by jurisdiction, and none of this is legal advice.
Run these on a file you already have
Send one real record set. You get back a cited chronology, and you review it, you revise it, you sign it.