By practice
Evaluating exposure, testing causation, and developing comparative fault and mitigation — often with carrier reporting in mind. Every prompt below assembles with this practice's emphasis already composed in — pick a workflow and add only the assignment details needed, using neutral labels where possible.
Practice workflow set
The configured civil / insurance defense lens adds this practice context to the template: This work product supports the defense: evaluating exposure, testing causation, and identifying comparative fault, alternative explanations, and failures to mitigate.
CasePrompts composes that emphasis into every prompt for this practice. Here is one complete, copy-ready example: the “Comb the medicals: gaps, prior claims, compliance” workflow using medical records as the source type, with the civil / insurance defense emphasis already built in. It pastes into any AI tool as is.
Synthetic example: Names, dates, organizations, and matter details are fictional placeholders, not a real case record.
CONTEXT: You are a litigation support analyst assisting civil defense counsel in a motor vehicle negligence defense matter. The attached production is the medical records of Alex Morgan. The incident at issue occurred on January 15, 2025. The injuries and conditions that matter are: comparative fault; prior injuries; treatment gaps; claimed limitations. This work product supports the defense: evaluating exposure, testing causation, and identifying comparative fault, alternative explanations, and failures to mitigate. INSTRUCTIONS: Build a complete treatment chronology covering every encounter in the production — visits, imaging, procedures, therapy sessions, and telephone encounters. For each encounter capture: provider and facility; date of service; presenting complaints in the patient's words where recorded; objective findings; diagnoses exactly as stated in the record (do not supply diagnoses or codes the record does not state); treatment rendered; medications; work or activity restrictions; and the next-step plan. Separately and explicitly: 1. Flag every gap in treatment longer than 30 days. 2. Flag every reference to symptoms, injuries, or treatment pre-dating January 15, 2025. 3. Collect every causation statement — any provider language attributing or declining to attribute a condition to the incident — verbatim. In this engagement, additionally: Flag treatment gaps, missed or cancelled appointments, non-compliance notes, prior or subsequent injuries to the same body parts, and every reference anywhere in the records to prior claims, accidents, or litigation. TEMPLATE — format your output exactly as follows: ## Chronology | Date | Provider / facility | Complaints | Findings | Diagnoses (as stated) | Treatment / meds | Restrictions | Cite | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| ## Treatment gaps (> 30 days) | Gap | Last visit before (cite) | First visit after (cite) | |---|---|---| ## Pre-existing / prior history references | Date | Provider | Verbatim reference | Cite | |---|---|---|---| ## Causation statements (verbatim) | Date | Provider | Exact language | Cite | |---|---|---|---| ## Compliance & prior claims (defense review) | Date | Type (missed appt / non-compliance note / prior claim or accident reference) | Verbatim record language | Cite | |---|---|---|---| EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS: For every entry, cite provider, date of service, and the page or Bates number of the source record. Record diagnoses and causation language exactly as written — never normalize, upgrade, or infer a diagnosis, and never supply an ICD code the record does not contain. If a record page is illegible or an encounter is referenced but missing from the production, list it under a final heading "Missing or illegible — request from provider" rather than guessing at its contents. If the provided record does not support a requested finding, write "not found in the record." Do not infer or fill gaps from outside knowledge. The scope is limited to the requested task, stated issues, and provided record. Do not introduce outside subjects or sources. A human reviewer must verify every material statement and citation against the source record before relying on or sharing the output.
Every template in the library assembles like this for civil / insurance defense — open the builder and add only the assignment details needed, using neutral labels where possible, or read the Attorney's Guide to AI Prompting for the method behind it.
Worked examples — each pairs a template with this practice's emphasis, end to end.
Read the clean, general guide for each curated workflow below. To apply the Civil / insurance defense context to your own facts, use the builder actions above.
Align a witness's deposition against every prior statement, classify each conflict, and get a lock-in → confrontation cross sequence with dual cites.
Audit an expert's deposition against their report: new opinions, abandoned opinions, changed bases, and undisclosed reliance materials — exclusion-motion fuel.
The standing-rules prompt: paste this once at the start of a chat session and every answer after it comes cited, sourced, and honest about gaps.