expert-witness-omissions

name	expert-witness-omissions
title	Expert Witness Medical Records Omissions Analysis
description	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.
author	CaseMark
author_url	https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/expert-witness-omissions
license	Apache-2.0
version	0.1.0
execution_mode	open
jurisdiction	us
practice	personal-injury
language	en
tags	["analysis","litigation"]

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