# IME Report Red-Flag Checklist - What Gets a Report Challenged > Eighteen checks an IME or QME report should pass before it leaves your desk, grouped by what a cross-examination attacks first. Free printable checklist. Canonical page: https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/samples/ime-report-red-flag-checklist/ --- [Content Hub](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/) › [Samples](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/samples/) › Templates & tools 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. By [Ahmed Jemaa](https://medrecords.ai/authors/ahmed-jemaa/) , Co-Founder & CEO of Medrecords AI · Published 8 Sep 2026 Checklist — Free — Updated 2026-09-08 ### 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](https://medrecords.ai/guides/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. Free · printable · no card Checklist ### 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](https://medrecords.ai/guides/is-ai-accurate-enough-for-court/) . #### 1Traceability5 checks - **Every fact in the report cites the page it came from** — An 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 copy** — A citation that points at a file the other side never received proves nothing. - **The records-reviewed list matches what was in fact reviewed** — A list padded with records nobody opened is the easiest impeachment in the deposition. - **Any figure, date, or measurement can be checked in under a minute** — If 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 quote** — A 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 - 3Opinion discipline6 checks #### 2The record behind the exam7 checks - **Encounters are ordered by date of service, not document date** — Mixing date types scrambles the course of the injury, and it is the most common error. - **Duplicate pages were removed before the timeline was built** — The same visit appearing three times reads as three visits. - **Wrong-patient pages were identified and pulled** — A page from another claimant in the file undermines every conclusion drawn from it. - **Treatment gaps are marked rather than left silent** — An 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 missing** — Naming 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 silently** — Conflicting 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 report** — When 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 section** — Conclusions inside fact rows invite a credibility attack on the whole document. - **Each referral question is restated and answered directly** — An unanswered referral question is the first thing the ordering party notices. - **Every opinion names the records it rests on** — An opinion with no stated basis cannot survive a challenge to its foundation. - **A named human reviewed the draft against the sources and stands behind it** — Someone has to be able to testify to how the report was prepared. - **No machine-generated conclusion is presented as the examiner's own opinion** — A 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 file** — Blending 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/) — 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. [Product — **Medical Chronology** — The medical timeline that builds itself, synced to every source page. Read more →](https://medrecords.ai/product/chronology/?src=content-hub-samples-ime-report-red-flag-checklist) [Product — **Verifiable AI citations** — If we can't cite it, we don't say it. Click any line to its source. Read more →](https://medrecords.ai/product/citations/?src=content-hub-samples-ime-report-red-flag-checklist) [Guide — **Is AI accurate enough for court** — The published guide every line of this tool was drawn from. Read more →](https://medrecords.ai/guides/is-ai-accurate-enough-for-court/) Test it on a file you already have. Send one real record set. You get back a cited chronology and decide for yourself whether the read holds up. [Test a file](https://medrecords.ai/test-a-file/?src=content-hub-samples-ime-report-red-flag-checklist) [Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/?src=content-hub-samples-ime-report-red-flag-checklist) ### More from Templates & tools [Fillable Medical Chronology Template](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/samples/medical-chronology-template/) [HIPAA Vendor Intake Checklist](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/samples/hipaa-vendor-intake-checklist/) [Workers' Comp IME Prep Checklist](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/samples/workers-comp-ime-prep-checklist/) [Life Care Plan Cost-Projection Worksheet](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/samples/life-care-plan-cost-projection-worksheet/) [The Chronology Bench Rubric](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/samples/chronology-bench-rubric/) [Medical Record Review Cost Calculator](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/samples/medical-record-review-cost-calculator/) Last verified: 2026-09-08 · [← All samples and tools](https://medrecords.ai/content-hub/samples/)