By practice
Documented clinical judgment, informed consent, comorbidities, alternative-cause evidence, and chart completeness. 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 medical malpractice — defense lens adds this practice context to the template: This work product supports the defense of the provider: documenting the clinical judgment exercised, the consent obtained, and the comorbidities and alternative causes the record supports.
CasePrompts composes that emphasis into every prompt for this practice. Here is one complete, copy-ready example: the “Chart chronology: judgment, consent, comorbidities” workflow using medical records as the source type, with the medical malpractice — 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 medical malpractice defense counsel in a medical 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: clinical judgment; informed consent; alternative causation. This work product supports the defense of the provider: documenting the clinical judgment exercised, the consent obtained, and the comorbidities and alternative causes the record supports. 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: Build the chronology to show what information was actually available to the provider at each decision point — not what hindsight added — and flag pre-existing conditions and alternative-cause evidence throughout. 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 | |---|---|---|---| 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 medical malpractice — 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.
Read the clean, general guide for each curated workflow below. To apply the Medical malpractice — defense context to your own facts, use the builder actions above.
Build a date-ordered medical chronology from the complete record, with source citations for every encounter and explicit flags for treatment gaps, prior history, causation language, and missing records.
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.