Prompt library
Verification and professional responsibility
Verifying AI medical record review output means checking in proportion to what an error would cost. Anything filed, sworn or served gets every citation opened and every quotation matched. This page carries the three tiers, a printable checklist, the duties each role holds, and the sources behind them.
Professional responsibility at a glance
Issues to raise, not answers. Requirements vary by jurisdiction, and none of this is legal advice.
| Lane | Live issues | Default verification tier |
|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff firms | Technology competence; supervision of assisted work product; confidentiality of client records in any system; candor in anything filed or served | Tier 1 for filed and served, Tier 2 internal |
| Defense firms | Same as above; plus claims-handling exposure where findings drive a coverage decision | Tier 1 for filed and served, Tier 2 internal |
| Legal nurse consultants | Scope of practice: analyze and organize, identify where a physician opinion is required, do not supply it | Tier of eventual use, not current use |
| IME and QME physicians | Neutrality; whether AI-assisted review requires disclosure in the report or on cross; confidentiality terms of the referral; jurisdiction and comp-system variation | Tier 1, entire report |
| Medical expert witnesses | Disclosure of facts or data considered; methodology challenges reaching the review process; retaining counsel decides disclosure posture | Tier 1, every citation, no sampling |
| Life care planners | Project from documented recommendations rather than generating them; obtain missing evaluations rather than reasoning past them | Tier 1 for the plan, Tier 2 for working analysis |
| Claims adjusters | Unfair claims practice exposure where an adverse decision rests on unverified output | Tier 2 minimum for anything moving a decision |
Two rules apply to everyone. Anything you quote gets checked at the source regardless of tier. Anything you hand to another person gets its tier stated, because most verification failures are handoff failures.
Verification checklist
One page. Print it.
- S2 provider roster run, and the provider count matches expectation
- S4 missing records audit run, outstanding items listed
- Production date recorded, and every output will carry it
Before you start
- Earliest and latest entries checked against the source
- Out-of-sequence rows inspected for OCR date drift
- Handwritten and faxed material spot-checked at a higher rate
On the chronology
- Citation opened, page confirmed to contain the finding
- Quotation matched to source word for word
- Speaker identified: clinician finding or patient report
- Date confirmed against the document, not just the summary
On any finding you will use
- Every gap cross-checked against S4 before it becomes a finding
- Rescheduled visits not counted as missed
- An empty absence result treated as a prompt problem, not a clean file
On absences
- Mirror prompt run: contrary evidence sought with the same specificity as supporting evidence
- Conclusions phrased as conclusions only where a human made them
On framing
- Verification tier stated on the document
- Record set and production date stated
- Nothing quoted that was not personally confirmed
Before it leaves your desk
Glossary
Cross-audience work needs shared vocabulary. A defense attorney and a life care planner do not use the same words for the same things.
ADL, activities of daily living. Basic self-care tasks. Bathing, dressing, feeding, transferring. A standard functional domain in life care planning.
Apportionment. Dividing a condition between causes, typically between a pre-existing condition and the incident at issue. Requires a documented pre-incident baseline, which the record often does not supply.
CPT. Procedure codes. What was done.
Daubert. The federal standard governing admissibility of expert testimony. State analogues vary, and some states follow a different standard.
DME, durable medical equipment. Braces, wheelchairs, CPAP machines. Priced with a replacement schedule in a life care plan.
FCE, functional capacity evaluation. A formal measured assessment of physical work capacity. Its absence is frequently the missing foundation under a disputed restriction.
ICD. Diagnosis codes. What the condition is.
IME, independent medical examination. An examination by a physician who is not treating the person, usually arranged by the defense or the carrier.
Impairment rating. A percentage assessment of permanent impairment, typically under a published guide. Distinct from disability, which concerns work capacity.
LOP, letter of protection. An agreement that a provider will be paid from settlement proceeds. Relevant to provider-relationship analysis where documented.
MMI, maximum medical improvement. The point at which a condition has stabilized and further material improvement is not expected. Frequently inferred and much less frequently stated. See S12.
QME, qualified medical evaluator. A role in certain state workers' compensation systems, most prominently California. Related to but not identical with IME.
Radiculopathy. Nerve root symptoms, typically radiating pain, numbness, or weakness. Often the hinge between a soft-tissue characterization and a structural one.
Rule 26. The federal disclosure rule governing expert reports, including the facts or data considered.
SOAP note. A note structured as subjective, objective, assessment, plan. The structure itself carries the objective-versus-subjective distinction that failure mode 5.3 destroys.
Standard of care. The level of care an ordinarily careful practitioner would provide in the circumstances. An LNC identifies where the question arises; a qualified physician answers it.
Sources
Every authority cited in the responsibility notes, so a reader can check it rather than take it.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). Written expert report contents, including "(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them" and "(ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them."
Fed. R. Evid. 702, as amended December 2023. The proponent must demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that each requirement is met. Subsection (b) requires testimony based on sufficient facts or data; subsection (d) requires that the opinion reflect a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case. The amendment clarifies that these are Rule 104(a) admissibility questions rather than matters of weight.
Cal. Lab. Code section 4628. Subsection (a) reserves history-taking, review and summary of prior medical records, and drafting of conclusions to the signing physician. Subsection (c) permits another person to prepare an initial history outline or excerpt prior records, provided the physician reviews the excerpts and the entire outline and makes such additional inquiries and examinations as are necessary. Subsection (e) makes non-compliance grounds for inadmissibility and eliminates liability for the associated medical-legal expense. See also 8 Cal. Code Regs. section 35.5 on AME and QME compliance with the Administrative Director's evaluation and reporting guidelines.
NAIC Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (Model 900), adopted June 1990. Sets standards for the investigation and disposition of claims, including the failure to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims. Most states have enacted a substantially similar act; scope and private-right-of-action treatment vary considerably by state.
Verified against primary sources on 8 September 2026. Rules change. Check before relying.
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.