Claude Prompt: Pre-Existing Condition vs. Aggravation Analysis From Medical Records
Separates the client's documented baseline from post-incident findings, builds a quoted before/after comparison for each body part, anticipates the defense reading of the same records, and drafts the questions to put to the treating physician.
The Prompt
Variables (7)
| Variable | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| {{client_name}} | Client Name | Maria Gonzalez |
| {{incident_date}} | Incident Date | 2026-06-14 |
| {{body_parts}} | Body Parts or Conditions at Issue | Cervical spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder |
| {{client_account}} | Client Account of Prior Symptoms and Function | Client says she had occasional low back stiffness after long shifts, last saw a chiropractor "a few years ago," and had no neck or shoulder problems before the collision. Worked full duty as a nurse. |
| {{aggravation_rule}} | Aggravation or Apportionment Rule | Paste the governing pattern jury instruction or case language on aggravation of a pre-existing condition and apportionment, or write UNKNOWN |
| {{prior_records}} | Pre-Incident Medical Records | Primary care notes 2021-2026, chiropractic records 2022, lumbar X-ray report dated 2022-09-12, pharmacy history... |
| {{post_records}} | Post-Incident Medical Records | Urgent care note dated 2026-06-23, cervical and lumbar MRI reports dated 2026-07-10, orthopedic consult, physical therapy notes, pain management records... |
Expected Output
A record index with recounted visit totals and coverage gaps, baseline and post-incident findings per body part, conflicts between sources (client account, provider histories and records quoted side by side), a before-and-after table with a quotation and citation on each side and a New / Worse / Unchanged / Not comparable classification, a same-modality imaging comparison, anticipated defense arguments tied to the quotations they rely on, questions for each treating provider, missing information, unsupported statements declined, declined requests, and a closing Verification list that ends the output.
Usage Notes
Use once the prior records have been obtained and before a narrative report is requested, a demand is sent or the client is deposed. Attach the complete prior and post-incident records for the body parts at issue and the client's own account of prior symptoms. Failure modes to watch: a classification of "New" that only reflects missing prior records or a comparison between different kinds of study, and a visit count copied from a summary instead of counted from the listed dates. Check the counts and coverage-gap section before relying on any before/after row, confirm each quotation against the original page, and pull any guideline a defense examiner cites before treating it as real. The output organizes records; it is not a medical opinion. Not legal advice. The attorney remains responsible for verifying every fact, figure and authority before use.
Legal Sources Referenced
- Fed. R. Evid. 702 (expert opinion must rest on sufficient facts or data and reliable methods reliably applied)
- Fed. R. Evid. 803(4) (hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment)
- Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) (hearsay exception for records of a regularly conducted activity)
Originally featured in: AI for Personal Injury Lawyers: Prompts for Demand Letters, Medical Summaries & Depositions
Related Prompts
Claude Prompt: PI Case Evaluation Memo (Liability, Fault, Damages, Collectability)
Turns intake notes and the documents in hand into a candid internal evaluation memo: liability by element, comparative fault exposure, documented versus undocumented damages, collectability, evidence to preserve, and an accept / decline / investigate recommendation.
Claude Prompt: Medical Lien and Subrogation Audit with Reduction Request Letter
Audits every lien and reimbursement claim on a settlement (Medicare, Medicaid, ERISA or other health plan, provider liens, med-pay), isolates unrelated charges and arithmetic errors, then drafts the reduction request. It never says a doctrine applies without the governing text.
Chronological Medical Treatment Summary From Records for PI Cases
Turns pasted medical records into a dated, source-quoted treatment chronology with recomputed visit counts and durations, treatment gaps listed without invented explanations, and conflicts between records shown, never resolved.
PI Intake Screening Checklist Generator for Paralegals
Builds a phone-ready intake screening form for a new PI inquiry: liability and damages questions, red-flag prompts, document requests, evidence-preservation steps and a scoring grid with your threshold applied exactly, and every limitation date left for you to verify.
* These prompts are drafting and analysis aids for licensed attorneys. They are not legal advice and do not replace professional judgment. AI output can contain errors, including invented citations and incorrect deadlines: verify every fact, figure, authority and deadline against primary sources before relying on it. Rules vary by jurisdiction, and you remain responsible for the final work product.