Skip to content
Build a chronologyCivil / insurance defenseMedical records

AI Medical Chronology Prompt for Lawyers for civil / insurance defense

Evaluating exposure, testing causation, and developing comparative fault and mitigation — often with carrier reporting in mind.

This combination adds the published CasePrompts emphasis for the Civil / insurance defense practice category to the AI Medical Chronology Prompt for Lawyers: "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."

Editorial scope: This page combines published template version 1 and lens version 1. No independent legal review is recorded. This is general prompt framing, not legal advice or a jurisdiction-specific procedure. Verify every output against the record and governing authority.

Worked example · Synthetic fictional details · Civil / insurance defense lens

Sample prompt

Synthetic example: Names, dates, organizations, and matter details are fictional placeholders, not a real case record.

Customize in builder
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.

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"

Practicing something else? See the general version or the full Civil / insurance defense workflow set. For source-specific citation and verification steps, use the medical records workflow.