Claude for Lawyers
LitigationAdvanced30–60 min

Medical Records to Chronology and Demand Letter

Turn a stack of medical records into a sourced chronology, an itemized specials summary, and a demand letter draft, all in one Claude conversation.

Personal InjuryLitigation

When to use this

Use this when you have a personal-injury client's medical records and bills and need to move from raw paper to a settlement demand. Reading and organizing records is repetitive, pattern-heavy work that Claude handles well when every entry is tied to a page reference. It fits pre-litigation demands and early case valuation, where you need to see the treatment story, the prior history, and the numbers quickly.

Medical-records review and demand drafting are high-volume, pattern-heavy, and time-consuming. A single soft-tissue case can carry hundreds of pages from the ER, urgent care, an orthopedist, a chiropractor, imaging centers, and physical therapy, each with its own date format, billing codes, and abbreviations.

This workflow runs in one Claude conversation so the context carries from step to step. You'll inventory the records, build a date-ordered chronology by provider (including any prior history the defense will raise), summarize the injuries, treatment, specials, and liens, and then draft the demand letter. By the time you reach the letter, Claude is writing from your own organized chronology, not from a cold pile of PDFs.

Treat every output as a first draft. Claude can misread a handwritten note, transpose a date, or total a column wrong, and in a demand letter those errors cost credibility and money. Rules on which medical expenses are recoverable (billed versus paid amounts, collateral-source rules) and on time-limited demands vary by jurisdiction, so the workflow leaves those as placeholders for you to confirm. You remain responsible for the work product: verify every date, diagnosis, and dollar figure against the source records before anything leaves your office.

The Workflow

  1. Load and organize the records

    Upload the medical records and bills (PDFs, scans, or exports) and have Claude inventory and group them before extracting anything. This first pass catches missing providers, duplicate pages, and illegible sections so you know what you're working with.

    Prompt
    <documents>
    [UPLOAD OR PASTE THE MEDICAL RECORDS AND BILLS. If pasting, wrap each provider's records in its own tag, e.g. <document provider="[PROVIDER]" bates="[RANGE]">...</document>]
    </documents>
    
    I am a personal-injury attorney representing [CLIENT NAME], the injured party, in a claim arising from a [TYPE OF INCIDENT, e.g., rear-end motor vehicle collision] on [DATE OF INCIDENT]. The documents above are the medical records and bills I have so far. My goal is a settlement demand, and this first step is only an inventory.
    
    Produce:
    1. A list of every distinct provider or facility you can identify, with the date range of treatment for each.
    2. The document types present for each provider (e.g., ER records, office notes, imaging reports, PT notes, itemized bills, EOBs or payment records).
    3. A "gaps and flags" list: anything illegible, pages that appear to be duplicates, bills without matching treatment notes (or the reverse), references to providers whose records are NOT in this set, and any mention of treatment or complaints that predate the incident.
    
    Do not draft a chronology yet. Cite the page or Bates number for each item. Where a date, name, or figure is unclear, write "UNCLEAR" rather than guessing. We will work through the records step by step in this same conversation.

    What you get: A provider-by-provider inventory with treatment date ranges and document types, plus a gaps-and-flags list pointing you to missing records, possible duplicates, unreadable sections, and any pre-incident history to chase down before you go further.

  2. Build the medical chronology

    Have Claude convert the organized records into a single date-ordered chronology, then make a separate pass for prior medical history and pre-existing conditions, the defense's main theme in most injury claims. Insist on source citations (page or Bates) for each entry so you can verify fast.

    Prompt
    Now build a medical chronology from the records above. Output a table sorted by date (earliest first) with these columns:
    
    | Date | Provider / Facility | Type of Visit | Key Findings / Diagnoses | Treatment / Plan | Source (page or Bates) |
    
    Rules:
    - One row per encounter. Use the date of service, not the date a note was dictated.
    - Quote diagnoses and key findings closely; do not paraphrase a diagnosis into something more or less severe.
    - In "Source," cite the page or Bates number so each entry can be verified against the records.
    - If two records conflict on a date or finding, add a row and flag the conflict in the Key Findings column.
    - Mark anything you could not read as "UNCLEAR" with the page reference.
    
    After the table:
    1. List any treatment gaps of more than 30 days between visits, since the defense often argues them.
    2. PRIOR HISTORY PASS: list every reference in the records to prior injuries, prior treatment of the same body parts, pre-existing or degenerative conditions, or prior accidents. Quote the passage and cite the page. Note where a provider distinguishes the new injury from a prior condition or describes aggravation. Do not characterize the legal effect; I will assess it.
    3. List anything you expected to find but did not (e.g., a referral with no follow-up record).

    What you get: A clean, date-ordered chronology table with a source citation on every row, conflicts flagged inline, a note of any 30+ day treatment gaps, and a quoted, cited list of prior-history references you need to address before the defense does.

  3. Summarize injuries, treatment, specials, and liens

    Ask Claude to distill the chronology into a narrative injury-and-treatment summary and an itemized specials table that separates billed, paid, and adjusted amounts and identifies lienholders. Which of those figures is recoverable depends on your jurisdiction, so the table keeps them apart for you to decide.

    Prompt
    Using the chronology above, produce three things.
    
    PART A: Injury and Treatment Summary (narrative, 4–6 short paragraphs)
    - The mechanism of injury and initial complaints.
    - The course of treatment in plain English (ER, imaging, specialists, PT, and so on).
    - Current status, any permanency or work restrictions noted by a provider, and any recommended future care.
    - Quote the treating providers where they state causation or prognosis, with page citations; do not invent causation language.
    
    PART B: Itemized Medical Specials (table)
    | Provider | Dates of Service | Type of Charges | Amount Billed | Amount Paid | Adjusted / Written Off | Payer or Lienholder | Source (page/Bates) |
    Give separate totals for Billed and Paid. If any bill, EOB, or figure is missing or unreadable, write "AMOUNT UNCONFIRMED" rather than estimating. Add this note under the table: "[JURISDICTION] rule on recoverable medical expenses (billed vs. paid, collateral source): attorney to confirm."
    
    PART C: Liens and Subrogation
    List every payer that appears in the records or bills (health insurer, government payer, med-pay, provider lien, letter of protection) with the page where it appears. Flag each as a potential lien or subrogation interest for me to confirm. Note separately any lost-wage or out-of-pocket figures I should add if I have documentation for them.
    
    Every dollar figure here must be verified against the bills before use. Say so at the top of Part B.

    What you get: A readable injury-and-treatment narrative grounded in quoted provider language, a specials table that keeps billed, paid, and adjusted amounts apart with UNCONFIRMED markers wherever a record is missing, and a list of potential lienholders to resolve before you value or settle the case.

  4. Draft the demand letter

    Now have Claude assemble the chronology, summary, and specials into a settlement demand. You supply the audience, liability theory, demand figure, and the jurisdiction's rules on recoverable expenses; Claude supplies the structure and prose.

    Prompt
    Draft a settlement demand letter to [ADJUSTER / DEFENSE COUNSEL NAME] at [INSURER / FIRM], re: my client [CLIENT NAME], claim no. [CLAIM NUMBER], date of loss [DATE]. I represent the claimant.
    
    Use the chronology, injury summary, prior-history pass, and specials we built above. Structure:
    1. Introduction: parties, date of loss, and the demand at a glance.
    2. Liability: why the insured is at fault, based on these facts: [BRIEF LIABILITY FACTS]. Our jurisdiction is [STATE]; insert [APPLICABLE NEGLIGENCE STANDARD] rather than stating it from memory.
    3. Injuries and Treatment: the narrative, tied to the providers. Address any prior-history references from Step 2 factually, using the providers' own language.
    4. Damages: itemized specials using the figure I specify here: [BILLED / PAID / OTHER, per [JURISDICTION] rule], plus a reasoned discussion of general damages (pain, limitation, impact on daily life and work).
    5. Demand: a settlement demand of [DEMAND AMOUNT] with a response deadline of [DEADLINE].
    
    If this is a time-limited or policy-limits demand, add a bracketed note at the top: "[JURISDICTION] may impose content and timing requirements on time-limited demands; insert [APPLICABLE RULE] and confirm compliance before sending."
    
    Tone: firm, professional, confident; persuasive but not inflammatory. Do not cite case law or statutes unless I provide them; where a citation would strengthen a point, insert "[ATTORNEY TO ADD CITATION]". Every date and dollar figure must trace to what we built above. Leave bracketed placeholders for anything you don't have, and after the letter list every placeholder and every factual statement you were unsure of.

    What you get: A complete, well-structured demand letter draft (introduction, liability, injuries, itemized damages, dated demand) with bracketed placeholders wherever facts, figures, rules, or citations still need your input, followed by a list of open items.

  5. Verify every date and figure against the records

    Do not send anything yet. This is the lawyer-in-the-loop step: the draft is only as good as your verification of it. Go line by line against the source records and your own judgment.

    What you get: A demand letter you can stand behind. Confirm each chronology date, diagnosis, and provider against the actual records; re-add the specials totals yourself and reconcile them to the bills and EOBs; confirm which expense figure your jurisdiction allows; resolve every lien and subrogation interest; resolve every UNCLEAR or UNCONFIRMED flag and bracketed placeholder; confirm any time-limited demand meets your jurisdiction's requirements; and check that no provider, treatment gap, prior condition, or causation statement has been overstated or understated. The letter goes out over your signature.

Example Output

Illustrative example — names, facts, and figures are fictional.

MEDICAL CHRONOLOGY: [Client A] (fictional) (DOL: 03/14/2025)

| Date | Provider | Type | Key Findings / Diagnoses | Treatment / Plan | Source |
| 03/14/2025 | Lakeside Regional ER | Emergency | Cervical strain; lumbar strain; contusion L shoulder. Neuro intact. | X-rays (neg. fracture); NSAIDs; f/u PCP | ER 0007 |
| 03/19/2025 | Dr. A. Nguyen, PCP | Office | Persistent neck/low-back pain; reduced ROM cervical spine | Referral to ortho + PT; muscle relaxant | PCP 0021 |
| 04/02/2025 | Coastal Orthopaedics | Specialist | C5-C6 disc protrusion per MRI; lumbar strain | Continue PT; re-eval 6 wks | ORTHO 0044 |
| 04/09/2025 | Bayview Imaging | MRI | C5-C6 disc protrusion w/ mild foraminal narrowing | Report to ortho | IMG 0058 |
| 04/15/2025–06/30/2025 | Restore PT | Physical Therapy | 18 visits; gradual ROM improvement, residual stiffness | HEP; discharged w/ restrictions | PT 0061–0139 |

Treatment gaps > 30 days: none.

PRIOR HISTORY: PCP 0019 notes "intermittent low back pain 2022, resolved with PT." No prior cervical complaints found in this set.

ITEMIZED SPECIALS [VERIFY every figure against the bills and EOBs]
| Provider | Billed | Paid | Adjusted | Payer / Lienholder |
| Lakeside Regional ER | $4,210.00 | $1,980.00 | $2,230.00 | Health plan (potential subrogation) |
| Coastal Orthopaedics | $1,875.00 | UNCONFIRMED | UNCONFIRMED | Letter of protection |
| Bayview Imaging (MRI) | $2,300.00 | UNCONFIRMED | UNCONFIRMED | Health plan |
| Restore PT (18 visits) | $3,960.00 | $2,140.00 | $1,820.00 | Health plan |
| TOTAL | $12,345.00 billed | partial | | |

[JURISDICTION] rule on recoverable medical expenses: attorney to confirm. Bayview total UNCONFIRMED: second page of invoice not in file.

(All names and figures above are fictional.)

Tips

  • •Work in one conversation and go in order. Each step feeds the next; if you jump straight to the demand letter, Claude is writing without the chronology and specials it should be drafting from.
  • •Require source citations (page or Bates) on every chronology row and specials line. It turns verification from a re-read of the whole file into a spot-check.
  • •Re-total the specials yourself. Have Claude show its per-provider math, then add the columns by hand; a wrong total in a demand letter hands the adjuster leverage.
  • •Keep billed, paid, and adjusted amounts in separate columns even if your jurisdiction lets you claim billed amounts. You'll need the paid figures to resolve liens anyway.
  • •Keep Claude from inflating or minimizing the case: instruct it to quote diagnoses, prior-history notes, and causation language verbatim and to flag UNCLEAR rather than guess.

A note on confidentiality

Medical records and bills are sensitive health information, typically obtained under a HIPAA authorization signed by your client, and they often include Social Security numbers, insurance member IDs, and unrelated medical history. Use them only within the scope of that authorization, redact identifiers you don't need (SSNs, member numbers, dates of birth) before uploading, and leave out records for unrelated conditions. Run this on a commercial plan (Team or Enterprise) whose terms exclude your content from model training. On Pro or Max, disable model training in Privacy settings; a commercial plan's contract terms are the stronger answer for client work. Confirm your handling meets ABA Model Rule 1.6 and ABA Formal Opinion 512. Every output is a draft for attorney review: verify each date, figure, and any citation against the source before use.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can Claude read scanned or handwritten medical records?

Claude can read uploaded PDFs and images, including many scans, but quality varies: handwriting, faint photocopies, and skewed scans are error-prone. That's why the first step asks Claude to flag anything UNCLEAR with a page reference. Treat low-quality pages as items to verify by hand, and never let the model guess at an illegible date or diagnosis.

How accurate are the chronology dates and the specials totals?

Useful as a first pass, not accurate enough to send unverified. Claude can transpose a date or mis-add a billing column, and a single wrong figure undermines a demand letter. The workflow builds in source citations and a final verification step so you can confirm every date and dollar against the records before the letter goes out. You remain responsible for the numbers.

Should the demand use billed or paid amounts?

That depends on your jurisdiction's rules on recoverable medical expenses and collateral sources, which differ significantly. The workflow keeps billed, paid, and adjusted amounts in separate columns and leaves a [JURISDICTION] placeholder so you decide which figure to present. Confirm the rule yourself; don't ask Claude to state it from memory.

Is it appropriate to use Claude on a client's medical records?

It can be, with the right setup and oversight. Stay within the scope of the client's HIPAA authorization, redact identifiers you don't need, use a commercial plan (or at minimum disable model training on Pro or Max), and satisfy your confidentiality duties under ABA Model Rule 1.6 and ABA Formal Opinion 512. The output is a first draft you review and adopt.

Get New Workflows Like This Every Week

Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — practical workflows, prompts, and guides for everyday practice.

Free weekly newsletter. Unsubscribe anytime.