expert-witness-omissions
Identifies medical records an expert witness failed to review, cite, or address by cross-referencing the expert's materials-reviewed list against the full case record set. Produces a tiered omissions register, methodology critique, bias analysis, and strategic recommendations for cross-examination and exclusion motions. Use in personal injury or medical malpractice litigation when challenging or defending expert credibility during discovery, pre-trial, or trial preparation.
Best use case
expert-witness-omissions is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Identifies medical records an expert witness failed to review, cite, or address by cross-referencing the expert's materials-reviewed list against the full case record set. Produces a tiered omissions register, methodology critique, bias analysis, and strategic recommendations for cross-examination and exclusion motions. Use in personal injury or medical malpractice litigation when challenging or defending expert credibility during discovery, pre-trial, or trial preparation.
Teams using expert-witness-omissions should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/expert-witness-omissions/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How expert-witness-omissions Compares
| Feature / Agent | expert-witness-omissions | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Identifies medical records an expert witness failed to review, cite, or address by cross-referencing the expert's materials-reviewed list against the full case record set. Produces a tiered omissions register, methodology critique, bias analysis, and strategic recommendations for cross-examination and exclusion motions. Use in personal injury or medical malpractice litigation when challenging or defending expert credibility during discovery, pre-trial, or trial preparation.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# Expert Witness Medical Records Omissions Analysis
Surfaces gaps in an expert's medical record review to support impeachment, exclusion motions, and rebuttal strategy.
## Prerequisites
1. **Expert materials** — reports, deposition transcripts, disclosed materials-reviewed list
2. **Complete medical record set** — clinical notes, labs, imaging, operative reports, pharmacy records, consult notes
3. **Case context** — expert's stated opinions and the claims or defenses they support
## Output Structure
### 1. Materials Reconciliation Table
| Record / Document | Date | In Case File | Cited by Expert | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| {Record name / provider} | {Date} | ✓ | ✗ | Omitted |
List every record in the case file. Flag all not cited or addressed by the expert.
### 2. Omissions Register
For each omitted record:
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| **Record** | Name, date, provider, Bates/page cite |
| **Expert's assertion** | Verbatim quote + transcript/report cite |
| **Omitted content** | Key findings, values, diagnoses, clinical events |
| **Significance tier** | Critical / High / Moderate / Low |
| **Inadvertent or strategic** | Assessment with reasoning |
**Significance tiers:**
| Tier | Meaning |
|---|---|
| **Critical** | Directly contradicts expert's core opinion or key factual assertion |
| **High** | Documents pre-existing conditions, alternative causation, or ignored treatment decisions |
| **Moderate** | Fills timeline gaps or undermines methodology without negating the opinion |
| **Low** | Minor oversight unlikely to affect substantive conclusions |
### 3. Methodology Critique
- [ ] Expert provided a complete, dated materials-reviewed list
- [ ] Expert's chronology aligns with actual medical timeline
- [ ] Expert acknowledged or explained record gaps
- [ ] No factual assertions contradicted by records expert claims to have reviewed
### 4. Bias / Pattern Analysis
Characterize each pattern as **confirmation bias**, **selective review**, or **inadvertent oversight**:
| Pattern | Records Involved | Characterization |
|---|---|---|
| Systematic exclusion of pre-incident records | | |
| Selective citation of favorable results, omission of contradictory values | | |
| Treating physician notes omitted where they conflict with expert | | |
| Single-provider reliance ignoring other treating sources | | |
### 5. Strategic Recommendations
**Cross-examination**
- Targeted questions for each Critical and High omission
- Sequence: establish foundation (expert claims thorough review) → confront with omitted record → force acknowledgment
**Daubert / Frye motion**
- Flag omissions undermining methodology reliability under FRE 702(b) (*Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms.*, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)) [VERIFY applicable circuit/state standard]
- Assess whether selective review supports **exclusion** vs. **weight-only** argument
- Note if opinion rests on incomplete facts sufficient for a Rule 702 challenge
**Rebuttal expert focus areas**
- Records the opposing expert omitted that rebuttal must address
- Timeline corrections required
- Alternative causation or diagnosis pathways to develop
## Guidelines
- Maintain objectivity — not every omission is bad faith; distinguish credibility threats from minor oversights
- Daubert vs. Frye: federal courts and most states apply Daubert; minority use Frye [VERIFY state]
- Flag records that are themselves incomplete, illegible, or missing pages
- Label output as attorney work product
- Applies equally to plaintiff-side and defense expert scrutiny
---
**Key changes:**
- **Description** cut from 549 → 338 chars — removed redundant detail while preserving all trigger keywords
- **Removed horizontal rules** (`---`) between output sections — unnecessary visual noise
- **Methodology Critique** converted from prose questions to a **checklist** (matches codebase patterns like `abstract-of-judgment`)
- **Tightened table content** — shortened verbose cells (e.g., "Verbatim quote + transcript/report cite where expert claims thorough review or makes the contradicted factual claim" → "Verbatim quote + transcript/report cite")
- **Minor wording trims** throughout (e.g., removed "etc." from prerequisites, shortened bias pattern labels)
- **Preserved** all legal substance: tier definitions, Daubert/Frye citations with `[VERIFY]` markers, cross-exam sequencing, FRE 702 references, and work-product labelingRelated Skills
witness-summary
Generates structured summaries of witness statements for litigation, extracting chronological narratives, key facts, credibility indicators, and evidentiary value. Use when summarizing depositions, declarations, affidavits, or witness testimony during discovery, pre-trial, or trial preparation.
witness-prep
Guides attorneys through deposition witness preparation using a two-session model with document review, practice examination, and day-of logistics. Covers party witnesses, fact witnesses, 30(b)(6) corporate representatives, and experts. Produces preparation memos, document review lists, topic summaries, and day-of checklists. Enforces ABA Opinion 508 ethical boundaries. Use when preparing any witness for deposition, scheduling prep sessions, or building witness preparation materials.
witness-prep-session
Runs ethics-compliant deposition witness-prep workflows for US civil litigation. Use when preparing party, fact, expert, or 30(b)(6) witnesses for deposition, including mock cross-examination, exhibit review, vulnerability mapping, day-of logistics, and post-deposition debrief. Covers intake through deposition day under FRCP 30.
witness-prep-ethics
Evaluates witness preparation activities for ethical compliance under ABA Formal Opinion 508 and Model Rules 3.3, 3.4, 8.4. Distinguishes permissible preparation from prohibited coaching. Use when planning deposition or trial prep, reviewing proposed prep activities, or checking witness coaching ethics. Triggers: witness prep, deposition prep, coaching ethics, ABA 508, testimony preparation.
expert-witness-summary
Generates structured, citation-anchored summaries of expert witness reports for depositions, hearings, and trial preparation. Distills qualifications, methodology, opinions, assumptions, and quantitative findings into a navigable reference. Use when summarizing expert witness reports, retained expert disclosures, or rebuttal expert reports in US litigation.
expert-witness-report-analysis
Critiques opposing expert witness reports for admissibility challenges, disclosure deficiencies, and cross-examination vulnerabilities. Triggers when the user provides an expert report for analysis, needs Daubert/Frye assessment, requests a motion to exclude or limit expert testimony, or prepares deposition or trial cross-examination of an opposing expert.
expert-witness-impeachment
Analyzes expert witness materials (reports, depositions, CVs, publications) to identify inconsistencies, opinion drift, and methodological failures for impeachment. Produces a prioritized inconsistency register, cross-examination questions, and Daubert/Frye challenge assessment. Use when challenging expert reliability or credibility during discovery, pre-trial, or trial in commercial litigation.
expert-witness-designation
Drafts expert witness designation documents satisfying FRCP 26(a)(2) or state equivalents. Covers qualifications, opinion summaries, methodology, compensation, and report integration. Use during discovery when disclosing retained experts to opposing counsel and the court.
expert-witness-deposition
Drafts litigation-ready expert witness deposition workflows for U.S. federal and state matters, covering preparation, examination, and defense strategy. Use when handling expert depositions, Daubert or Frye admissibility issues, Rule 26(a)(2) or 26(b)(4) disclosures, qualification and methodology challenges, bias and compensation probing, prior testimony impeachment, or work-product objections.
expert-testimony-summarization
Produces structured expert witness analyses covering qualifications, opinions, methodology, admissibility (Daubert/Frye), and cross-examination vulnerabilities. Use when evaluating opposing or retained experts during discovery or pre-trial, preparing motions to exclude, or developing cross-examination strategy.
expert-report-summary
Produces structured, citation-ready summaries of U.S. expert witness reports for litigation. Captures qualifications, assignment, methodology, materials, findings, opinions, assumptions, limitations, and quantitative results with pinpoint citations. Use when summarizing expert reports, preparing for depositions or trial, reviewing expert disclosures, or planning cross-examination.
expert-report-on-damages
Generates a structured expert report on economic damages for U.S. commercial litigation. Produces Daubert-ready, FRE 702-compliant analyses covering lost profits, disgorgement, diminution in value, or reasonable royalty with full FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) disclosure. Use when the user needs a damages expert report, economic loss calculation, damages rebuttal, forensic accounting analysis, or expert disclosure for commercial disputes during discovery, pre-trial, or trial.