Communitygithub.com

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Builds auditable personal injury damages calculations separating special damages (medical, wage loss, out-of-pocket) from general damages (pain and suffering) using multiplier and per diem methods. Trigger when the user mentions PI damages calculation, personal injury valuation, demand package damages, special damages compilation, general damages multiplier, per diem pain and suffering, collateral source analysis, comparative fault adjustment, lien accounting, net-to-client modeling, billed vs. paid medical expenses, future care present value, or building a damages section for a demand letter or mediation statement.

legal-skills-open란 무엇인가요?

legal-skills-open is a Claude Code agent skill that builds auditable personal injury damages calculations separating special damages (medical, wage loss, out-of-pocket) from general damages (pain and suffering) using multiplier and per diem methods. Trigger when the user mentions PI damages calculation, personal injury valuation, demand package damages, special damages compilation, general damages multiplier, per diem pain and suffering, collateral source analysis, comparative fault adjustment, lien accounting, net-to-client modeling, billed vs. paid medical expenses, future care present value, or building a damages section for a demand letter or mediation statement.

지원 대상~Claude Code~Codex CLI~Cursor
npx skills add https://github.com/ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open/tree/HEAD/us/personal-injury/skills/damages-calculator

즐겨 사용하는 AI에게 물어보기

이 에이전트 스킬이 미리 로드된 새 채팅을 엽니다.

문서

Personal Injury Damages Calculator

Produces a defensible, auditable PI damages model: every figure traced to a source document, billed and paid columns carried, general damages justified by methodology, and adjustments (comparative fault, liens, caps) applied transparently.

Quick Start

  1. Gather incident, billing, medical, wage, and future care documents (Intake below)
  2. Structure the model with special damages, general damages, and adjustments sections
  3. Calculate each category with source-traced line items
  4. Apply jurisdictional adjustments and produce final demand summary
  5. Verify with Quality Audit checklist before delivery

Intake (Mandatory)

Ask every time unless user says "use defaults" or "just draft":

  1. Incident & liability — date, mechanism, parties, comparative fault, prior injuries, jurisdiction
  2. Insurance — BI limits, med-pay/PIP, UM/UIM, coverage disputes
  3. Medical billing — itemized bills, EOBs (billed/paid/adjusted), lien statements (Medicare, Medicaid, ERISA), pharmacy, DME
  4. Medical records — EMS, ER, imaging, operative reports, PT, pain management, discharge summaries
  5. Wage/employment — employer verification, 13+ weeks pay stubs, W-2s/1099s (3 years), disability notes, FMLA/STD, used PTO/sick time
  6. Replacement services — home care, childcare, cleaning, transport invoices
  7. General damages support — pain journal, witness statements, injury photos, mental health records, functional limitations
  8. Future care — life care plan, surgeon recommendations, PT plan, vocational evidence

Defaults if user doesn't respond: carry both billed and paid columns; present multiplier and per diem for general damages; flag comparative fault and liens for attorney resolution; flag jurisdictional rules [VERIFY].

Pause for missing categories before finalizing numbers.

Step 1: Model Structure

Line-item table format: date, provider/source, amount billed, amount paid, causation notes.

Medical expense measure — critical decision:

MeasureWhen
Billed chargesCollateral source rule jurisdictions (e.g., NY)
Paid/incurredHowell v. Hamilton Meats, 52 Cal. 4th 541 (2011) jurisdictions
Reasonable valueReasonable value standard jurisdictions

If counsel cannot specify, carry both columns and flag for attorney determination.

Sections: A. Special damages (past/future medical, past/future wages, out-of-pocket, replacement services) · B. General damages (pain/suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment, disfigurement, consortium) · C. Adjustments (comparative fault, offsets, policy limits, liens, statutory caps)

Step 2: Past Medical Specials

Extract per line item: service date, provider, CPT/DRG code, amount billed, amount paid/adjusted.

Causation screen (all three required):

  • Temporality — treatment began promptly for complained-of body parts
  • Consistency — records document injury complaints throughout
  • Medical necessity — care related to diagnosis and mechanism

Flag items failing any criterion as "potentially contested."

Columns: gross billed → contractual adjustments → insurer payments → patient responsibility → outstanding balances/liens.

Ancillary: co-pays, Rx, OTC (if documented), DME, mileage, parking, childcare for visits.

Step 3: Wage Loss Specials

  1. Establish disability period from work notes/restrictions — flag gaps between incident and first visit
  2. Calculate wage base:
TypeMethod
HourlyAvg weekly hours × rate from pay stubs
SalariedAnnual ÷ 52
Tipped/commissionHistorical earnings documentation
Self-employedTax returns + P&L (gross ≠ earnings); flag for expert if large
  1. Add lost overtime, bonuses, used PTO/sick, lost employer benefits (retirement match, health premiums)
  2. State gross vs. net methodology explicitly; flag tax treatment for jurisdictional review

Step 4: Future Economic Damages

Only calculate with evidentiary foundation. Typically requires expert testimony for admissibility.

SourceApproach
Life care planUse plan categories and totals directly
Specific recommendationUnit cost × quantity; label assumption-based
Vague reference ("may need surgery")Do NOT assign dollar figure; flag for medical opinion

Present value: Discount projected costs at appropriate rate; account for medical inflation. Flag methodology for jurisdictional verification.

Future earning capacity: BLS work-life expectancy tables. Without expert input, produce labeled "scenario analysis" (conservative/aggressive) with all assumptions marked.

Step 5: General Damages

Build harm narrative from records before calculating: pain duration/intensity, objective findings, treatment invasiveness, daily life disruption, permanency/scarring.

Multiplier Method

Total economic damages × severity factor:

SeverityRangeIndicators
Mild/full recovery1.5–2×Soft tissue, short treatment, full resolution
Moderate2–3×Extended treatment, residual symptoms, functional limits
Severe3–5×Surgery, permanent impairment, disfigurement, prolonged disability

Never select a multiplier without articulating severity justification.

Per Diem Method

Daily rate by recovery phase:

PhaseRateExample
AcuteHigher$200–400/day
SubacuteModerate$100–200/day
Residual/chronicLower$50–100/day

Benchmark: plaintiff's daily earnings (a day of pain ≥ a day of work).

Present both methods. Convergence strengthens demand; divergence requires reassessment. Flag per diem trial permissibility — some courts prohibit per diem arguments [VERIFY].

Step 6: Adjustments and Final Summary

Double-counting check:

  • Wage loss not also counted as diminished earning capacity
  • No overlapping facility/global charges
  • Non-economic subcategories as single total with narrative components, not additive line items (unless jurisdiction requires)

Comparative fault:

RegimeRule
Pure comparativeRecovery reduced by plaintiff's % fault
50%-bar modifiedNo recovery if plaintiff ≥ 50% at fault
51%-bar modifiedNo recovery if plaintiff ≥ 51% at fault

Present gross damages, then risk-adjusted range if fault disputed.

Collateral source: Show both billed and paid; flag recoverable measure for attorney.

Liens: Net-to-client sensitivity analysis when data available. Flag resolution steps (Medicare conditional payments, ERISA reimbursement).

Statutory caps: Uncapped value + capped maximum as separate lines. Flag med-mal caps, government entity limits [VERIFY].

Policy limits: Present full case value separately; note how limits affect demand posture.

Output Structure

  1. Past medical (billed/paid)
  2. Future medical (if supported)
  3. Past wage loss
  4. Future wages / diminished earning capacity (if supported)
  5. Other out-of-pocket
  6. Non-economic damages (method justified)
  7. Total demand
  8. Notes: liens, caps, jurisdictional issues

Every figure must trace to a document. Missing documents → label as estimate.

Post-Draft Alignment (Mandatory)

Ask after delivering initial calculation:

  1. Billed or paid as primary medical expense measure?
  2. Is comparative fault estimate accurate?
  3. Additional lien holders unaccounted for?
  4. Does general damages result align with counsel's valuation?

If no response, recommend resolving billed-vs-paid (highest-impact variable) and proceed if authorized.

Quality Audit

  • Every dollar traces to source document (or labeled estimate)
  • Both billed and paid columns carried until counsel selects
  • Causation screen applied to each medical charge
  • Wage loss methodology correct for employment type
  • Future damages supported by evidence, not speculation
  • General damages justified by both multiplier and per diem
  • No double-counting between categories
  • Comparative fault applied correctly for jurisdiction
  • Lien accounting complete with net-to-client analysis
  • Statutory caps identified and applied
  • All legal rules verified or flagged [VERIFY]
  • Assumptions documented prominently

Jurisdiction Checklist

Flag and resolve before finalizing:

  • Collateral source / billed vs. paid rule
  • Comparative negligence regime and threshold
  • Non-economic damages caps (by case type)
  • No-fault/PIP serious injury threshold
  • Per diem argument permissibility
  • Present value discount requirements
  • Joint and several liability rules
  • Wrongful death framework (if applicable)
  • Loss of consortium availability

Pitfalls

  • No invented data. Never fabricate citations, verdict data, or "average settlement values." Use [VERIFY] for any unconfirmed citation.
  • No speculative futures. Do not assign future damages figures without medical support.
  • All legal rules verified or flagged. Caps, collateral source, comparative negligence — verify or mark [VERIFY].
  • Ethics: ABA Model Rules 1.1, 3.1, 4.1, 3.3.
  • Scope notice: "Attorney work product draft requiring review. Jurisdictional rules must be verified. Figures based on provided documentation and stated assumptions."

Individual skills in this repo

This repo contains 20 individual skills — each has its own dedicated page.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Track the IP portfolio — registrations, renewals, maintenance fees, and use declarations. Use when checking what's renewing, adding or updating an asset, recording a maintenance filing, or auditing the register for gaps, lapses, and use-in-commerce questions. Receives handoffs from prosecution and clearance work.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

When the user's message starts with "Canada" (case-insensitive), generate a full Ontario PI Case Assessment Memo from the case_stressor corpus and return it verbatim. This is the primary handler for Canadian fact patterns — DO NOT ask clarifying questions first; run the memo and let the lawyer react.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

交通事故责任评估与判定专业技能。当用户需要交通事故责任分析、事故现场照片评估、交通法规咨询、事故责任划分、法律依据查询时触发此技能。适用于车辆碰撞事故、行人事故、非机动车事故等各类道路交通事故的责任认定场景。无论用户使用"交通事故"、"车祸"、"责任判定"、"交通法规"、"事故定责"等何种表述,只要涉及交通事故评估或责任认定,均应调用此技能。

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Strategische Markenportfolio-Planung für Luxus-Modehaeuser: Mandant will Marken in DE/EU/international schützen oder Portfolio optimieren. Normen: §§ 32 ff. MarkenG, Art. 32 ff. UMV (EU) 2017/1001, Madrid-Protokoll (WIPO). Prüfraster: Nizza-Klassen (3/14/18/25/35), Multi-Class-Strategie, Prioritaets-Kaskade, Kostenoptimierung, Anmeldezeitpunkt. Output Marken-Portfolio-Plan, Anmelde-Empfehlung je Territorium, Kostenprojektion. Abgrenzung: Einzelne Anmeldung DPMA siehe wortmarke-anmeldung-dpma; Madrid-Protokoll Details siehe madrid-protokoll-und-internationale-registrierung.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Audit an intellectual-property portfolio for ownership, protection, scope, deadlines, territorial coverage, use, value, encumbrances, and enforcement risk. Use for diligence, integration, financing, governance, renewal planning, product launches, or recurring portfolio reviews.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Use whenever the user asks about a motor-vehicle statute, citation, contributing factor, OR a Canadian personal-injury fact pattern — always query Specter's Harvester API before answering. The API auto-routes between two collections (US statutes + Canadian PI case law).

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Assesses product liability exposure on given facts — classifying the defect as manufacturing, design, or warning/instruction, mapping which party in the supply chain is potentially exposed, and grading the realistic exposure. Use this whenever a user wants product liability worked through rather than a general deficiency test — including phrasings like "what's our exposure if this product injured someone", "is this a design defect or a manufacturing defect", "who in the supply chain is on the hook here", "assess our product liability risk on these facts", or "how exposed are we if the warning label was inadequate". Distinct from deficiency-analyst, which tests service and trade-practice thresholds — this is specific to defective products and supply-chain exposure. Fires for any product liability question, in any jurisdiction, for manufacturers, assemblers, sellers, distributors, or importers.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

KI-VO Hochrisiko-Anforderungen für Personalwesen in Kanzleien ab August 2026: Anwendungsfall Kanzlei setzt KI im HR-Bereich ein oder beraet Mandanten zum AGG-konformen KI-Einsatz bei Bewerberauswahl. Anhang III Nr. 4 KI-VO Hochrisiko Bewerberauswahl, Inkrafttreten 2. August 2026, AGG Diskriminierungsverbot. Prüfraster Hochrisiko-Klassifizierung eigener HR-KI, Konformitätsbewertung, Transparenzpflichten für Betroffene, Beratungsmandate Arbeitsrecht. Output Checkliste Hochrisiko-Anforderungen mit Umsetzungsplan für August 2026. Abgrenzung zu Bias-und-Diskriminierung-Prüfung und zu KI-VO-Betreiber-Pflichten.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Vorlagetabelle für Portfolio-Review von Arbeitsvertraegen im 3D-Format: Forderung/Prüfung/Stellung. Normen: BGB, KSchG, ArbZG. Prüfraster: Vertragsbedingungen, Klauselgueltigkeit, HR-Compliance. Output: Arbeitsvertrag-Portfolio-Tabelle. Abgrenzung: nicht allgemeine 3D-Review-Konfiguration.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Unternehmen oder Kanzlei muss IP-Portfolio verwalten und anstehende Fristen im Blick behalten. Schutzrechtsportfolio-Verwaltung. Prüfraster: Eintragungen Verlaengerungen Jahresgebühren Benutzungsnachweise Fristkalender. Output: Fristenkalender und Portfolio-Audit mit Luecken Verfall und Benutzungsfragen. Abgrenzung zu schutzschrift-eilverfuegung (Verletzungsverteidigung) und markenanmeldung-dpma.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Statusuebersicht aller laufenden Prozessmandate: Fristen, Verfahrensstand, naechste Schritte. Normen: ZPO, RVG. Prüfraster: Fristenliste, offene Anträge, Termine, Mahnfristen. Output: Portfolio-Statusbericht Prozessmandate. Abgrenzung: nicht Einzelmandat-Briefing.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Workflow-Skill zu aufklaerungsfehler beweisstrategie. Nutzt Normtext, Nutzerangaben und verifizierte Quellen; Rechtsprechung nur nach Live-Pruefung mit Gericht, Datum und Aktenzeichen.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Strukturierte Prüfung von Ansprüchen wegen Behandlungsfehler nach §§ 630a ff. BGB iVm § 823 BGB. Behandlungsvertrag Aufklärungspflicht § 630e BGB Dokumentationspflicht § 630f BGB Beweislastregeln § 630h BGB grober Behandlungsfehler Beweislastumkehr voll beherrschbares Risiko Anfaengerstandard Schmerzensgeld § 253 BGB. Schlichtungsstelle Aerztekammer MDK-Gutachten. Verjährung drei Jahre § 195 BGB Hoechstfrist dreissig Jahre § 199 Abs. 2 BGB.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Workflow-Skill zu fachanwalt medizinrecht aufklaerungsfehler. Nutzt Normtext, Nutzerangaben und verifizierte Quellen; Rechtsprechung nur nach Live-Pruefung mit Gericht, Datum und Aktenzeichen.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Behandlungsfehler §§ 630a 630h BGB Verletzung medizinischer Standard. Diagnosefehler Therapiefehler Befunderhebungsfehler Hygienefehler. Beweisregeln § 630h BGB Vermutung Kausalität bei grobem Behandlungsfehler § 630h Abs. 5 BGB Befunderhebungsfehler Dokumentationsmangel. Schadensersatzanspruch §§ 280 823 BGB Schmerzensgeld § 253 BGB. Verjährung drei Jahre § 195 BGB ab Kenntnis 30 Jahre Hoechstfrist.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Mandant hatte Verkehrsunfall und fragt: Wer haftet wie viel und welche Schadensposten koennen geltend gemacht werden? §§ 7 17 18 StVG iVm § 254 BGB Haftungsquote. Prüfraster: Betriebsgefahr beidseitig Anscheinsbeweis Auffahrunfall Spurwechsel Rotlicht Vorfahrt Mithaftung Tempo Sicherheitsabstand Anschnall. Schadenspositionen Reparatur fiktive Abrechnung Mietwagen Nutzungsausfall Sachverständige Schmerzensgeld. Output: Haftungsquoten-Berechnung und Schadenstabelle. Abgrenzung zu fachanwalt-verkehrsrecht-regulierungsanforderung (Gläubigerseite vs. Versicherer) und fachanwalt-verkehrsrecht-versicherer-quotenverhandlung-vergleich.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Verkehrsunfall-Mandat im Zivilprozess vorbereiten: Schadensersatz, Schmerzensgeld, Versicherungskorrespondenz. Normen: §§ 7 18 StVG, §§ 823 253 BGB, § 115 VVG. Prüfraster: Haftungsquote, Schadensposten, Verjaebrung, Regulierungsablauf. Output: Klageschrift Verkehrsunfall oder Klageerwiderung. Abgrenzung: nicht Strafrecht oder Ordnungswidrigkeiten.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Analyzes an entire portfolio of contracts at scale — extracting key terms, obligations, renewal dates, risk provisions, and financial commitments across hundreds or thousands of agreements simultaneously. Produces structured reports, obligation trackers, renewal calendars, and risk matrices. Also supports playbook-based redlining where contracts are compared against preferred positions and automatically marked up. Use when an in-house legal team, GC, legal ops, procurement, or finance team needs portfolio-wide visibility into contract terms, upcoming renewals, obligation compliance, or batch contract review against organizational standards.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Classifies personal vs non-personal data per GDPR Art. 4(1) definition test with decision tree for borderline cases. References Breyer v Germany CJEU C-582/14 dynamic IP ruling and WP29 Opinion 4/2007. Keywords: personal data, GDPR Art 4, data classification, Breyer ruling, identifiability test, PII.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Use when a matter involves marriage, divorce, property division, custody, or inheritance for non-Muslim residents of the UAE under Federal Decree-Law 41/2022 (the UAE Civil Personal Status Law) or the DIFC Wills Service Centre. Covers no-fault divorce, joint-custody default, equal-property division, testamentary freedom for non-Muslims, pre-nuptial agreement enforceability, and the parallel DIFC/ADGM wills regimes. Contrasts with the UAE Personal Status Law 28/2005 (Sharia-based) which governs Muslim residents. Triggers on non-Muslim divorce UAE, UAE civil marriage, DIFC wills, UAE prenup, or expat family law UAE questions.

관련 스킬