All 27 chapters in this guide
Published
- Physicians
- Attorneys
- Institutions
Reviewed by Kanwar Partap Singh Gill, MD · sources checked
These original educational worksheets organize questions. They do not calculate deadlines, establish negligence, waive privilege, or replace a qualified professional's judgment. Use them in a secure, authorized environment. Keep patient identifiers out of public submissions and website forms.
Worksheet 1: The clinical and evidence timeline
| Field | What to enter |
|---|---|
| Event date and time | Include time zone and whether exact, estimated or disputed |
| Patient condition | Symptoms, findings and clinically relevant change |
| Information available | What the particular actor could reasonably know at that point |
| Actor and role | Exact person or entity; role and scope of responsibility |
| Decision or omission | Specific action, order, communication or alleged missed step |
| Source | Record, message, testimony, device log or recollection |
| Documentation time | Creation, signing, amendment and export time when relevant |
| Next responsible person | Whether the handoff was acknowledged and accepted |
| Resulting event | Subsequent condition, care and alleged injury |
| Unresolved question | Missing information and who might supply it |
Read the timeline twice: once from the patient's perspective and once from each actor's position at the relevant time. A reviewer should not silently import a later diagnosis into an earlier decision.
Worksheet 2: The elements and counter-explanation map
For each proposed defendant, complete these fields: duty and source; applicable professional or institutional standard; specific claimed departure; supporting evidence; contrary evidence; qualified expert needed; probable causal pathway; competing cause; actual damages; procedural requirements; and the single missing item most likely to change the evaluation.
Example entry, fictional: an abnormal result was routed to an unmonitored queue after a physician's departure. The institutional theory concerns reassignment and coverage. The individual theory depends on who knew the task existed and had responsibility and an opportunity to act. Causation requires a medical explanation of how timely action probably would have changed the patient's injury. The queue's existence alone does not complete either claim.
Worksheet 3: Expert suitability and opinion boundaries
| Question | Record the answer |
|---|---|
| What exact opinion is needed? | Standard, breach, causation, prognosis, costs, technology, or another subject |
| Why is this reviewer qualified? | Relevant training, clinical experience and familiarity with the question |
| What period and setting matter? | Practice at the time, resources, clinical context and specialty |
| What materials were reviewed? | Complete list, versions and missing items |
| What assumptions drive the opinion? | Identify assumptions that need independent proof |
| What alternative explanation was tested? | State the strongest contrary account and the response |
| What would change the opinion? | Additional fact, test, record or methodological limitation |
| What lies outside the opinion? | Explicit referral to another discipline or counsel |
Expert selection and disclosure must comply with the applicable forum's law and scheduling orders. This worksheet is not a designation, expert report, or certificate of merit.
Worksheet 4: Responsibility for a clinical technology
Record the system name and version, clinical purpose, developer, vendor, deployer, local decision-maker, configuration owner, data sources, user permissions, reviewer, downstream recipients, validation evidence, training, incident history, and stop or fallback mechanism. For each disputed failure ask who could detect it, who could correct it, who knew about it, what reasonable action was available, and what evidence shows causal contribution.
Use the responsibility table to develop questions, not percentages of legal fault. Contract allocation, negligence, agency, product law, regulatory duties, and insurance coverage are separate analyses.
Worksheet 5: Result and referral completion audit
Select a defined group of orders or referrals. Record expected completion, actual completion, clinical review, patient communication, next action, owner, backup, and unresolved barriers. Classify a task as clinically completed only when the required work is done or an appropriate clinical disposition is documented. Include orders never performed and referrals never scheduled, not only results that successfully returned.
Suggested output: a list of specific hazards with an assigned corrective action and reassessment date. Do not compare clinicians using raw counts without accounting for case mix, workload, coverage, and whether the system reliably detects failures.
Worksheet 6: Insurance and representation inventory
Record the exact insured person and entity, carrier or coverage administrator, policy period, occurrence or claims-made basis, retroactive date, reporting conditions, limits, aggregate, deductible or retention, defense-cost treatment, consent provisions, tail or prior-acts arrangements, exclusions, Board-defense benefits, and the contact responsible for claims. For a federal or self-insured arrangement, use its actual terms and status evidence.
Then ask whether the patient event falls within the covered work, whether notification was properly made, and whether the individual and institution have separate counsel or an actual or potential conflict. A certificate of insurance rarely answers all these questions.
Worksheet 7: Source and privilege classification
For each requested record identify its creator, creation date, original purpose, custodian, ordinary-course existence, later committee use, asserted legal protection, and available independent source. Preserve the distinction between a clinical fact and a committee's deliberation about that fact. Counsel should determine the scope of any objection, privilege log, protective order, or alternative production.
Worksheet 8: Publication and case-update record
For each published case entry record full citation, court, date, publication status, issue, procedural posture, actual holding, outcome, limits, source link, subsequent history checked, and last substantive review. Label a settlement as a settlement and allegations as allegations. Never describe an insurer's closed claim example as a California precedent unless an identifiable published decision supports that description.
The substantive chapters supply the legal authority for the fields above. The worksheets are reusable methods, not evidence that the required analysis has already been performed in any particular case.