AI Medical Chronology Prompt for Lawyers
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.
Direct answer
What is an AI medical chronology prompt?
It is a set of instructions for organizing a medical-record production into a date-ordered treatment table. This prompt requires a source cite for every encounter, keeps diagnoses and causation language as written, and separates treatment gaps, prior history, and missing records instead of asking the model to fill them in.
When to use this prompt
- After collecting the medical production and before drafting a demand, exposure report, or examination outline.
- When you need one dated view of encounters, imaging, procedures, therapy, restrictions, medications, and next-step plans.
- When treatment gaps, prior complaints, causation statements, or missing records need their own review queues.
Record inputs to prepare
- The complete medical production available for the review, including late-added or duplicate records.
- Stable page, Bates, or PDF-page references and legible OCR or text for each source.
- The claimant name, incident date, case type, reviewing role, and the injuries or conditions in scope.
- Any known missing providers or date ranges so the final list can distinguish absent material from a silent record.
Worked example · Synthetic fictional details
Sample prompt
Synthetic example: The names, dates, case details, and issues below are fictional CasePrompts sample values, not client data or evidence from a real matter. They demonstrate the prompt format, not the accuracy of any AI model's output.
Preview the complete sample prompt
CONTEXT: You are a litigation support analyst assisting plaintiff's counsel in a motor vehicle negligence matter. The attached production is the medical records of Teresa Okafor. The incident at issue occurred on March 4, 2024. The injuries and conditions that matter are: cervical disc herniation at C5-6; post-concussive symptoms. 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 March 4, 2024. 3. Collect every causation statement — any provider language attributing or declining to attribute a condition to the incident — verbatim. 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.
Through the Civil / insurance defense lens
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.
Through the Commercial litigation lens
Build the timeline from the documents — contracts, amendments, notices, invoices, and correspondence — with the witnesses' accounts layered on top, never the reverse.
Through the Criminal defense lens
Build the timeline to the minute wherever the record allows — who knew what when, when warnings were given, when searches and seizures occurred. Precise sequence is frequently the entire defense.
Through the Employment litigation lens
Sequence complaints, protected activity, performance documentation, and employment decisions precisely — proximity and order are often the whole case — attributing each entry to its author and date.
Through the Family law lens
Communications and conduct timelines dominate this practice: build them from texts, emails, and exchange records with exact dates and times wherever available, attributing every entry to its author.
Through the Medical malpractice — defense lens
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.
Through the Medical malpractice — plaintiff lens
Anchor the chronology to clinical decision points — what was known, when it was known, and what was done or not done in response — and capture standard-of-care and causation language verbatim.
Through the Personal injury — plaintiff lens
Give particular weight to provider language on causation, permanency, impairment, and future care needs, and to consistent symptom reporting across providers over time.
Through the Probate & estate litigation lens
Capacity and influence turn on timelines: build them around the execution date(s) — cognitive decline, isolation from family, changes to the estate plan, and the fiduciary's transfers — attributing every entry to its source and exact date.
Through the Prosecution lens
Build the timeline that the converging sources support, and explicitly flag gaps or sequence ambiguities a defense could exploit, rather than smoothing them.
Through the Workers' compensation — claimant lens
Track the authorized-treatment trail precisely — referrals, authorizations, denials, and delays — and capture work-status notes, restrictions, MMI findings, and impairment ratings verbatim with dates.
Through the Workers' compensation — employer/carrier lens
Flag treatment gaps, missed appointments, non-compliance with authorized care, unauthorized treatment, prior and subsequent injuries, and every reference to prior claims anywhere in the records.
AI output is a starting point, not work product. Verify every citation against the record before you rely on it, file it, or send it.
What you'll fill in
- 01Your role
- 02Case typee.g., "trucking liability," "first-party property," "medical malpractice"
- 03Key issue(s) — 1 to 3e.g., "vehicle speed at impact; brake maintenance; visibility"
- 04Claimant / patient name
- 05Date of incident / losse.g., "March 4, 2024"
Human review gate
Verification and common failure modes
- Compare every row to the cited page and confirm the patient, provider, date of service, and document date were not conflated.
- Check quoted diagnoses and causation statements word for word; models may normalize terminology or turn a history into a finding.
- Reconcile duplicate notes, late signatures, copied-forward histories, and references to outside care before treating the timeline as complete.
- Open every item labeled missing or illegible and decide whether to request a better copy or an additional provider record.
Boundaries
Limitations
- The output is a working chronology, not a medical opinion, legal advice, or a substitute for reviewing the source records.
- Scans, OCR errors, mixed patient files, inconsistent service dates, and incomplete productions can produce omissions or false chronology.
- The prompt does not decide medical causation, reasonableness, necessity, or admissibility. Those judgments remain with qualified humans.
- CasePrompts does not process the record on this page. If you paste the prompt or record into another service, your firm and that provider control data handling.
Keep working
Practice versions and related workflows
Provenance
Version and editorial method
- Published by
- CasePrompts, a DepoStack project
- Template
- Version 1
- Page updated
Editorial owner: Andrew Mayes. The versioned CITE content is validated at build time, and this page's sample is assembled deterministically from the synthetic values above. No language model generates the sample page.
Review status: This template has not received independent legal review. “Published” describes its CasePrompts release status; it is not a claim of legal approval, jurisdictional sufficiency, or measured model accuracy.
Read the editorial methodology →Pro tip The 'Missing or illegible' list doubles as your follow-up records request — send it to the provider the same day.
Related templates
Communications Timeline Builder
Turn an email and letter production into a dated who-knew-what-when timeline with thread lineage and Bates cites — knowledge milestones flagged.
Demand Letter Facts Section
Draft the facts and damages narrative of a demand from the record itself — every sentence cite-backed, gaps flagged instead of papered over.
Record Interrogation Session Setup
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.