# Rule 35 Examination Record Review > Record packets for Rule 35 defense medical examinations: the file condensed to the conditions in controversy, page-cited, with out-of-scope records split out. Canonical page: https://medrecords.ai/solutions/defense-medical-examination-record-review/ --- New — **Missing Records Detection:** flags every visit, provider, and date missing from the file. [See how →](https://medrecords.ai/product/missing-records-identification/) [Home](https://medrecords.ai/) ›[Solutions](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/) › — Rule 35 Examination Review RULE 35 EXAMINATION RECORD REVIEW ## The order defines the scope. The packet should respect it. Rule 35 examination record review services prepare the examining physician’s packet: prior treatment for the conditions in controversy, imaging reports, the current course and the ordered scope itself, each cited to its page, with records outside that scope separated rather than mixed in. [Test a file ](https://medrecords.ai/test-a-file/?src=defense-medical-examination-record-review) [Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/) Click any row → the source page it cites Examination packet · Case #IME-4812 documented Adams, Timothy · examination file 342 pp / 2 packets received logged 11 duplicate pages removed free p.140 — wrong patient quarantined Pages 342 Documents 27 Cited 100% ### The examination is ordered by a court. The order says how far it goes. We do not build for a case type until we can name the standard that defines a correct output and the person who grades the file against it. In court-ordered medical examinations, both are already published. The standard and the referee The rulebook - Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a), which permits an examination only on a showing of good cause and only of a condition genuinely in controversy - Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(b), which entitles the examined party to a detailed written report of findings, results and diagnoses on request - The forum state’s analogue, such as California Code of Civil Procedure §2032.220 through §2032.320, which adds its own notice and scope limits - The examination order itself, which names the conditions, the examiner and the permitted scope The referee - The trial court, which decides the Rule 35 motion and rules on any examination that exceeded the order - Plaintiff’s counsel, who moves to strike opinions on conditions the order did not cover - The retained rebuttal expert, who reads the same records and the same report An examination report struck for opinions outside the ordered scope From 10¢ to as low as 5¢/page here, duplicates free Examination packet · Case #IME-4812 cited 100% Packet — 342 pp / 2 packets · 11 deduplicated — logged Conditions in controversy — Prior and current treatment, in sequence — cited Imaging — Report text carried with its date — cited Out-of-scope records — Separated, not folded into the packet — flagged Packet delivered · cited 100% · no findings authored How it works ### 3 steps between the file and the examination room. 01 #### Send the file and the order The produced records in any format, plus the examination order or notice that names the conditions and the permitted scope. 02 #### We return the packet, page-cited Prior treatment for the conditions in controversy, imaging reports, the current course, and a separate index of everything outside the ordered scope. 03 #### The physician examines and reports They perform the examination and write the Rule 35(b) report under their own name. Every finding in it is theirs, made in person. The boundary, in writing ### A packet for the examiner, not an examination. We condense and cite the records you provide. We do not examine anyone, author findings or diagnoses, draft any part of the Rule 35(b) report, or decide what falls inside the ordered scope. The examination and every clinical conclusion belong to the examining physician. In the demo case, page 140 turned out to belong to a different patient. An examiner who relies on a stranger’s finding hands the other side its cross-examination, so the page is quarantined on its own line. Audit trail · Case #IME-4812 exportable 08:12 — Packet received · 342 pp / 2 packets — system 08:31 — 11 pages deduplicated — system 08:44 — p.140 flagged — wrong patient — system 08:54 — Examination packet complete · packet delivered · cited 100% — system 09:20 — Examination packet reviewed · citations verified — reviewer 09:26 — Examination packet exported · pre-exam brief sent to the examiner — reviewer Every access logged · file deleted 30 days after delivery Why Medrecords AI ### The rules the platform never breaks. EVERY LINE CITED CASE #IME-4812 · ADAMS, T. 342 pp 2/14 — ER visit, right knee p.4 4/18 — arthroscopic surgery p.61 p.140 — wrong patient quarantined Medrecords AI Read every page · cite every line #### HIPAA, under a signed BAA Every file is handled under our Business Associate Agreement, from the first byte. #### Never trains a model Your records are never used to train any AI model — ours or anyone else's. #### Every line cited If we can't cite it, we don't say it. Every sentence links to its source page. #### Deleted after delivery Files are deleted 30 days after delivery, with a full audit log of every access. Powered by the platform ### 7 capabilities behind every examination packet. The examination packet is one deliverable of the same platform that reads, sorts, and cites the whole record. [ #### Medical Records OCR Every page read in full, including handwritten therapy notes, so nothing relevant is left out of the packet by accident. IN ACTION · 342 pp / 2 packets, read in full ](https://medrecords.ai/product/ocr/) [ #### Medical Chronology Prior and current treatment for the conditions at issue assemble into one timeline. IN ACTION · prior care → current course, one timeline ](https://medrecords.ai/product/chronology/) [ #### Verifiable AI Citations Everything in the packet carries its page, and everything outside the ordered scope is listed separately rather than mixed in. IN ACTION · packet → cited 100% ](https://medrecords.ai/product/citations/) [ #### Medical Summary Reports It exports into the examiner’s pre-exam brief in their own template. IN ACTION · packet → pre-exam brief ](https://medrecords.ai/product/summaries/) [ #### Medical Record Deduplication Forty charts pulled from multiple practices and EHR migrations carry their share of duplicate visit notes. Each is matched and collapsed to one canonical record, so the prescribing pattern is read once per real encounter. IN ACTION · 40 charts → duplicate visit notes collapsed to 1 record each ](https://medrecords.ai/product/medical-record-deduplication/) [ #### Missing Records Identification A prescribing pattern read across 40 charts is only as sound as the file behind it. When a chart references a visit, refill, or referral that never made it into the production, the gap is flagged before the pattern goes to the board. IN ACTION · prescribing pattern cross-checked → gaps flagged before submission ](https://medrecords.ai/product/missing-records-identification/) [ #### Cross-Exam Simulator A board investigator or defense counsel builds a case from the chart abstraction. This tool maps the questioning a physician facing that hearing is likely to face on the gaps and pattern in their own record. A rehearsal tool, not legal advice. IN ACTION · prescribing pattern → likely hearing questions mapped ](https://medrecords.ai/product/cross-exam-simulator/) FAQ ### Rule 35 examination packets, answered. No. The Rule 35(b) report is the examining physician’s document, based on the examination they perform. We prepare the cited record packet they read beforehand. Findings, results and diagnoses are theirs alone. Because deciding what the order covers is a legal call, not ours. Separating them keeps the packet aligned to the conditions in controversy while leaving counsel free to include more, with a clear record of what was provided. Yes. The state analogues, California’s among them, run on the same structure: an order naming conditions and scope, an examination, and a written report. The packet is built against whatever order you send. No. Medrecords AI does not retrieve records from providers or facilities. You bring the records you already have — review starts in minutes from upload. Retrieval vendors take days; you can keep yours and still cut the review to minutes. ### Send one file. We'll tell you what we can read. No obligation. If the case type is buildable we'll scope it; if it isn't, we'll say so. [Test a file ](https://medrecords.ai/test-a-file/?src=defense-medical-examination-record-review) [Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/) [See every case type we process →](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/case-types/) ### More solutions - [**400 narratives, one house style, and a submission date.** — Patient narratives for deaths, serious adverse events and discontinuations, drafted to the ICH E3 clinical…](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/csr-patient-narrative-drafting/) - [**45 days to a credible RCA. Most of it goes to assembly.** — Chart, policy and device-log assembly for root cause analysis and sentinel event review, page-cited and…](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/sentinel-event-rca-record-review/) - [**45 days, one indexed packet, 1 narrative that maps to the coverage criteria.** — ADR response support for TPE, UPIC, SMRC and RAC audits: indexed record packets, signatures and orders located…](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/medicare-audit-response/) - [**5,000 pages of employment and exposure history, in order.** — Record and employment-history review for EEOICPA Parts B and E claims. Exposure chronology, dose reconstruction…](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/eeoicpa-claim-review/) - [**60 days from the answer, and the specialty has to match.** — Page-cited record review for New Jersey affidavits of merit under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 — the file read in full…](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/new-jersey-certificate-of-merit/) - [**60 days to certify. However many pages the chart runs to.** — Page-cited record review for Pennsylvania Rule 1042.3 certificates of merit — the file read in full before a…](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/pennsylvania-certificate-of-merit/)