NewMissing Records Detection: flags every visit, provider, and date missing from the file. See how →
HomeSolutionsProduct Liability Causation Review
PRODUCT LIABILITY CAUSATION RECORD REVIEW

Specific causation is decided on the alternatives nobody ruled out.

Product liability causation record review services organize what a specific causation opinion has to survive: the documented exposure window, the diagnosis and its workup, every alternative cause the chart records, and the labeling in force at the time, each cited to its page. The opinion remains the expert’s.

Click any row → the source page it cites
Causation record pack · Case #IME-4812 documented
Adams, Timothy · product liability file
342 pp / 2 packets received logged
11 duplicate pages removed free
p.140 — wrong patient quarantined
Pages 342 Documents 27 Cited 100%

The reliability standard is published. The judge holds the hearing.

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 product liability causation, both are already published.

The standard and the referee
The rulebook
  • Fed. R. Evid. 702 as amended in December 2023, which requires the proponent to establish reliability by a preponderance rather than leaving it to the jury
  • The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, third edition, published by the Federal Judicial Center and the National Research Council, whose epidemiology and toxicology chapters courts cite directly
  • The product’s FDA-approved labeling as it read during the exposure window, including every revision to the warnings section
  • The FDA adverse event record for the product, in FAERS for drugs and MAUDE for devices, as it stood at the relevant dates
The referee
  • The transferee or trial court at a Daubert hearing on general and specific causation
  • The defense causation expert, who works the same chart for alternative explanations
  • The appellate court reviewing an exclusion that ended the case
A specific causation opinion excluded over an alternative cause sitting in the chart From 10¢ to as low as 5¢/page here, duplicates free
Causation record pack · Case #IME-4812 cited 100%
Packet342 pp / 2 packets · 11 deduplicatedlogged
Exposure windowStart and stop dates from pharmacy or implant recordscited
Alternative causesComorbidities and exposures the chart recordscited
Workup gapsDifferential steps never documentedflagged
Record pack delivered · cited 100% · no causation opinion
How it works

3 steps between the file and the hearing.

01

Send the plaintiff file and the labeling

Pharmacy and implant records, treating and specialist notes, pathology, imaging reports, occupational and social history, and the label versions you are working from.

02

We return the record pack, page-cited

The exposure window, the diagnosis and its workup, every alternative cause the chart documents, and the label text in force at the relevant dates.

03

Your expert forms the opinion

General and specific causation, differential methodology and the response to alternatives are theirs. The pack is the cited record the hearing runs on.

The boundary, in writing

An organized record, not a causation opinion.

We locate, quote and cite what the file and the labeling document. We do not perform a differential etiology, rule alternative causes in or out, opine on general or specific causation, or interpret the epidemiological literature. Rule 702 places that on the expert.

In the demo case, page 140 turned out to belong to a different patient. An exposure date read off a stranger’s pharmacy page is the kind of error that ends a case at the hearing, so it is quarantined.

Audit trail · Case #IME-4812 exportable
08:12Packet received · 342 pp / 2 packetssystem
08:3111 pages deduplicatedsystem
08:44p.140 flagged — wrong patientsystem
08:54Causation record pack complete · record pack delivered · cited 100%system
09:20Causation record pack reviewed · citations verifiedreviewer
09:26Causation record pack exported · reliance list assembled by the expertreviewer
Every access logged · file deleted 30 days after delivery
Why Medrecords AI

The rules the platform never breaks.

Medrecords AI 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 causation record pack.

The causation record pack is one deliverable of the same platform that reads, sorts, and cites the whole record.

Medical Records OCR

Every page read in full, including decades of primary care notes where alternative causes are usually first mentioned.

IN ACTION · 342 pp / 2 packets, read in full

Medical Chronology

Exposure and disease course assemble on one timeline, so latency is visible rather than asserted.

IN ACTION · first exposure → diagnosis, one timeline

Verifiable AI Citations

Every alternative cause carries its page, including the ones the plaintiff’s own expert will have to address.

IN ACTION · record pack → cited 100%

Medical Summary Reports

It exports into the expert’s reliance-materials list in your format.

IN ACTION · record pack → reliance list

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

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

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
FAQ

Product liability causation review, answered.

No. General and specific causation are expert opinions offered under Rule 702. We assemble the cited record they are formed on: the exposure window, the workup, the alternative causes documented in the chart, and the labeling in force at the time.

Because the defense expert will find them, and an opinion that never addressed a documented comorbidity is the one that gets excluded. Surfacing them early, with pages, is what lets your expert address them in the report rather than at the hearing.

No. Literature selection and interpretation are the expert’s methodology. We work the case file and the labeling and adverse event record you supply, and cite every extraction to its page.

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.