NewMissing Records Detection: flags every visit, provider, and date missing from the file. See how →
HomeSolutionsCausation Record Foundation
TREATING PHYSICIAN CAUSATION FOUNDATION

The opinion is the doctor’s. The record under it should be complete.

Treating physician causation foundation services assemble the cited record an expert disclosure has to rest on: mechanism of injury, prior condition, treatment course and every document the physician reviewed, each linked to its page. The opinion, the methodology and the signature stay with the physician who gives them.

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

The disclosure rule is published. So is the judge who applies it.

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 expert causation disclosures, both are already published.

The standard and the referee
The rulebook
  • Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), which requires a retained expert’s written report to state the facts and data considered, not merely the conclusions reached
  • Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C), the shorter disclosure for treating physicians, which still requires the subject matter and a summary of the facts and opinions
  • Fed. R. Evid. 702 as amended in December 2023, which requires the proponent to show by a preponderance that the opinion reflects a reliable application of the method to the facts of the case
  • Fed. R. Evid. 703, which governs when an expert may rely on facts and data not themselves admissible
The referee
  • The trial court at a Rule 702 hearing, which excludes an opinion whose factual basis the record does not support
  • The court on a motion to strike, which limits a treating physician to the opinions actually disclosed under Rule 26(a)(2)(C)
  • Opposing counsel at deposition, who asks the expert which records they reviewed and which they did not
An expert struck for an opinion the reviewed record did not support From 10¢ to as low as 5¢/page here, duplicates free
Record foundation · Case #IME-4812 cited 100%
Packet342 pp / 2 packets · 11 deduplicatedlogged
Records reviewedIndexed as a disclosable listcited
Prior conditionPre-incident treatment for the same body partcited
Gaps in treatmentIntervals with no documented careflagged
Foundation delivered · cited 100% · no causation opinion
How it works

3 steps between the file and the disclosure.

01

Send everything the expert will review

Pre-incident and post-incident records, imaging reports, therapy notes and the incident documents, in any format and any order.

02

We return the foundation, page-cited

A chronology, a prior-condition section, a reviewed-records index and a gap list, each entry linking to the page it came from.

03

The physician forms the opinion

They read the foundation, apply their own method, and write the report they will sign. Causation is theirs, and the record under it is complete.

The boundary, in writing

A foundation for the opinion, never the opinion itself.

We organize and cite what the records document. We do not form or draft a causation opinion, select a methodology, apportion between accident and pre-existing disease, or state that any injury was caused by any event. Rule 702 puts that burden on the expert, and it stays there.

In the demo case, 11 duplicate copies were removed before review. An expert who reads the same operative note four times has not read more of the record, and the reviewed-records index says so honestly.

Audit trail · Case #IME-4812 exportable
08:12Packet received · 342 pp / 2 packetssystem
08:3111 pages deduplicatedsystem
08:44p.140 flagged — wrong patientsystem
08:54Record foundation complete · foundation delivered · cited 100%system
09:20Record foundation reviewed · citations verifiedreviewer
09:26Record foundation exported · Rule 26 disclosure prepared by counselreviewer
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 record foundation.

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

Medical Records OCR

Every page the expert will be asked about, read in full: prior treatment, imaging reports, handwritten therapy notes, nothing skipped.

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

Medical Chronology

The chronology builds itself, so prior condition and post-incident course sit on one timeline instead of in two piles.

IN ACTION · pre-incident → current care, one timeline

Verifiable AI Citations

If we cannot cite it, it is not in the foundation. Every line links to its page.

IN ACTION · foundation → cited 100%

Medical Summary Reports

The reviewed-records index exports straight into the Rule 26 disclosure in your format.

IN ACTION · index → Rule 26 attachment

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

Causation record foundations, answered.

No. We assemble the cited record the report rests on. The facts and data considered, the method applied and every opinion expressed under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) are the expert’s work, and the signature on the report is theirs.

No. It shows what the records document and when, including prior treatment for the same body part and any gaps in care. Whether those facts establish causation is a Rule 702 question for the expert to answer and the court to weigh.

It is the first thing opposing counsel asks about at deposition. An index that names every document by date and source, and cites the pages, lets the expert answer precisely instead of estimating, and it drops straight into the Rule 26 disclosure.

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.