Templates & tools
IME report red-flag checklist
Eighteen checks to run over an IME or QME report before you sign it, grouped the way a cross-examination goes: can every fact be traced to a page, is the record behind the exam clean, and does the opinion stay separate from the facts. Each line names the failure it catches.
What’s inside
- Traceability: the checks that decide whether a line survives cross-examination
- The record behind the exam: duplicates, wrong-patient pages, gaps, missing records
- Opinion discipline: keeping conclusions out of the fact rows
- Each check names the specific failure it catches, not a vague quality goal
- One page, printable, designed to sit beside the draft while you read it
Built for IME / QME physicians · Expert witnesses. Every line traces to Is AI accurate enough for court, which is published in full on this site, so you can check the tool against the reasoning behind it.
IME report red-flag checklist
18 checks in 3 sections. Every line names the failure it catches. Drawn from Is AI accurate enough for court.
1Traceability5 checks
- Every fact in the report cites the page it came fromAn entry no reader can trace back to a page is a line opposing counsel gets to question.
- Cited pages resolve to the record actually produced, not a working copyA citation that points at a file the other side never received proves nothing.
- The records-reviewed list matches what was in fact reviewedA list padded with records nobody opened is the easiest impeachment in the deposition.
- Any figure, date, or measurement can be checked in under a minuteIf proving one line takes real work, one weak entry casts doubt on the whole document.
- Quotations reproduce the note, rather than paraphrasing it as a quoteA paraphrase inside quotation marks reads as a fabricated record once compared.
The remaining 2 sections, 13 more checks, open below.
2The record behind the exam7 checks
- Encounters are ordered by date of service, not document dateMixing date types scrambles the course of the injury, and it is the most common error.
- Duplicate pages were removed before the timeline was builtThe same visit appearing three times reads as three visits.
- Wrong-patient pages were identified and pulledA page from another claimant in the file undermines every conclusion drawn from it.
- Treatment gaps are marked rather than left silentAn unflagged three-month gap looks like either a real gap or a missing record, and you want to control which.
- Records referenced but never produced are listed as missingNaming what is absent is the difference between an incomplete file and an incomplete review.
- Contradictions between accounts of the same event are flagged, not resolved silentlyConflicting accounts are central to the opinion; burying one hides the issue rather than addressing it.
- Imaging was read, not just the radiologist's one-page reportWhen the injury turns on what the scan shows, the report alone is a summary of someone else's read.
3Opinion discipline6 checks
- The timeline states what the record says; interpretation sits in the opinion sectionConclusions inside fact rows invite a credibility attack on the whole document.
- Each referral question is restated and answered directlyAn unanswered referral question is the first thing the ordering party notices.
- Every opinion names the records it rests onAn opinion with no stated basis cannot survive a challenge to its foundation.
- A named human reviewed the draft against the sources and stands behind itSomeone has to be able to testify to how the report was prepared.
- No machine-generated conclusion is presented as the examiner's own opinionA tool does not authenticate a record, form a medical opinion, or decide a case.
- The report distinguishes what was observed at the exam from what was read in the fileBlending the two makes it impossible to tell which findings the examiner actually made.
Sources
Nothing in this tool is invented. Every line traces to a page published in full on this site, verified 2026-09-08.
- Is AI accurate enough for court — https://medrecords.ai/guides/is-ai-accurate-enough-for-court/
Common questions
What does the checklist actually check?
Eighteen things about the report in front of you, in three sections: whether every fact traces to a page, whether the record behind the exam is clean, and whether opinion has stayed out of the fact rows.
Is this specific to California QME reports?
No. The checks apply to any IME or QME report, because they are about traceability and record hygiene rather than a jurisdiction's forms. Your own board's format requirements sit on top of these.
Can I use it on a report a vendor drafted for me?
That is what it is for. The checks do not care who or what produced the draft; they ask whether the document can be defended line by line.
How Medrecords AI does this work
The tool above is yours to run by hand. This is what the software does with the same file.
