Communitygithub.com

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Produces a litigation-ready analysis of medical bills and supporting records for personal injury, medical-malpractice, workers''-compensation, and disability cases. Validates CPT/HCPCS/ICD-10 codes against documentation, applies a per-charge causation screen, runs a UCR/FAIR Health/MPFS reasonableness review, surfaces unbundling, upcoding, duplicate and phantom billing, flags letter-of-protection inflation, identifies collateral-source and lien interfaces, and outputs a memo whose every finding cites document, page, and Bates. Trigger on: medical billing analysis, medical bill audit, billing reasonableness review, UCR review, CPT/ICD code review, NCCI/unbundling/upcoding review, billed vs. paid analysis, letter of protection (LOP) analysis, collateral source review, chargemaster markup, causation chain, IME rebuttal prep, demand-package billing exhibit, mediation statement billing section, lien interface identification.

O que é legal-skills-open?

legal-skills-open is a Claude Code agent skill that produces a litigation-ready analysis of medical bills and supporting records for personal injury, medical-malpractice, workers''-compensation, and disability cases. Validates CPT/HCPCS/ICD-10 codes against documentation, applies a per-charge causation screen, runs a UCR/FAIR Health/MPFS reasonableness review, surfaces unbundling, upcoding, duplicate and phantom billing, flags letter-of-protection inflation, identifies collateral-source and lien interfaces, and outputs a memo whose every finding cites document, page, and Bates. Trigger on: medical billing analysis, medical bill audit, billing reasonableness review, UCR review, CPT/ICD code review, NCCI/unbundling/upcoding review, billed vs. paid analysis, letter of protection (LOP) analysis, collateral source review, chargemaster markup, causation chain, IME rebuttal prep, demand-package billing exhibit, mediation statement billing section, lien interface identification.

Funciona com~Claude Code~Codex CLI~Cursor
npx skills add https://github.com/ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open/tree/HEAD/us/personal-injury/skills/medical-billing-analysis

Perguntar na sua IA favorita

Abre um novo chat com esta habilidade de agente já pré-carregada.

Documentação

Medical Billing Analysis

A medical-billing analysis is simultaneously the spine of the damages case and a future exhibit at deposition, mediation, and trial. A defective analysis (invented UCR figures, missed unbundling, undocumented charges treated as valid, pre-existing same-body-part treatment not flagged, lien holders not identified) either understates the case or hands opposing counsel impeachment material. This skill produces a memo where every charge is reconciled, every code is checked against the chart, every finding cites document/page/Bates, every red flag carries a stable taxonomy ID, and every jurisdictional assumption is surfaced for counsel.

The skill is billing-side: it does not value the case, draft the demand, build the full chronology, or resolve liens. It hands those off to sibling skills.


Related skills

  • medical-record-chronology — full date-ordered treatment narrative; consume it, do not rebuild
  • medical-treatment-summary — narrative course of treatment
  • damages-calculator — valuation, multipliers, present value; this skill feeds it the billing-side line items
  • lien-resolution-summary — Medicare/Medicaid/ERISA/hospital liens; identify here, resolve there
  • ime-report-analysis, expert-medical-record-omissions — defense-side rebuttal prep
  • pi-demand-summary, demand-letter, mediation-statement — downstream consumers
  • hipaa-release — verify authorization scope before requesting records

Checkpoint A: Pre-Draft Intake (Mandatory)

Ask every time unless the user says "use defaults" or "just draft." Record gaps explicitly; do not silently proceed.

Required

  1. Incident facts — date, mechanism, body parts claimed, jurisdiction, liability posture
  2. HIPAA release scope — what records are authorized; whether 42 C.F.R. Part 2 SUD records are in scope
  3. Medical records — every provider (ER, inpatient/operative, imaging, PT/OT/chiro, pain management, behavioral health, pharmacy, DME)
  4. Itemized bills at CPT/HCPCS level — UB-04 for facilities, CMS-1500 for professionals; not totals
  5. EOBs — for every claim (billed / allowed / paid / adjustment / patient responsibility)
  6. Lien statements — Medicare (CMS conditional payment letter), Medicaid, ERISA plan, hospital/provider, workers' comp, VA/Tricare
  7. Pre-incident records — same body parts, baseline function, medications

As applicable

  1. Letters of protection — flag every LOP-billed line for RF-12 review
  2. IME or peer-review reports
  3. Life care plan — if future medicals at issue

Defaults if user does not respond (label every default in the output):

  • Analyze chronologically; carry billed and paid as separate columns
  • Flag treatment gaps > 30 days
  • Apply three-prong causation screen per charge (temporality, consistency, medical necessity)
  • Flag every jurisdictional rule [VERIFY]

Missing-material policy. Proceed with what's available. List missing categories in Section 4 (Open Items) of the output. Do not produce reasonableness or causation conclusions on a provider whose itemized bill is absent — name the gap and stop.


Workflow

Step 1 — Build Document Inventory & Bates-Map

Classify each document, assign a short stable doc-label, record Bates range and OCR status. Use the categories listed in references/OUTPUT-TEMPLATE.md Section 5. The doc-label carries through every citation in the memo.

Step 2 — Reconcile Billing Arithmetic

For each provider, verify: billed = paid + contractual adjustments + patient responsibility + outstanding balance. Record the per-provider reconciliation row (Section 7 of the output). Any failure to reconcile is itself a flag — identify the underlying cause (RF-04 duplicate, RF-05 phantom, an unrecorded adjustment, or a data-entry error) and record it. Do not paper over a delta; show it.

Step 3 — Validate Codes (CPT / HCPCS / ICD-10)

Per charge, check that:

  • The code is valid for the date of service (CPT/HCPCS year, ICD-10-CM specificity).
  • The code descriptor matches what the chart documents (procedure verb, anatomy, components).
  • The diagnosis on the claim supports the procedure billed.
  • Modifiers (-25, -59, X-modifiers, -26, -TC, -50, -RT/-LT, -51, -22) are used correctly.

Detailed mechanics, modifier-misuse catalog, NCCI/MUE framing, and DRG considerations: see references/CODE-VALIDATION.md. Never assert a code-text mapping from memory; cite the AMA codebook or CMS file, or label [VERIFY: billing expert].

Step 4 — Apply Causation Screen (per charge)

Three prongs, all required, applied to every billed line item:

  • Temporality — treatment began promptly for the complained-of body parts
  • Consistency — complaints documented throughout the course of care
  • Medical necessity — care relates to the diagnosis and the mechanism of injury

Failures get tagged "potentially contested — attorney review" in Section 7's Notes column and surface as red flags (RF-23 through RF-28 as applicable). The causation screen is the same screen used by damages-calculator Step 2 — keep terminology aligned.

Step 5 — Run Reasonableness Review

Produce a benchmark range, not a single "reasonable amount." Use FAIR Health, MPFS, state WC fee schedules, and the case's own EOB allowed amounts. Geographic adjustment (geozip/locality) matters. Letter-of-protection lines get extra scrutiny.

Methodology, source list, percentile presentation, billed-vs-paid integration, and "when to recommend a billing expert" thresholds: see references/REASONABLENESS-METHODOLOGY.md. Never quote a benchmark figure that was not actually retrieved; if no benchmark was run, say so and recommend a billing expert.

Step 6 — Flag Red Flags (taxonomy IDs)

Use the stable IDs in references/RED-FLAGS-CATALOG.md. Categories: billing integrity (RF-01–RF-10), reasonableness (RF-11–RF-14), referral patterns (RF-15–RF-17), documentation (RF-18–RF-22), causation (RF-23–RF-28), IME/peer-review (RF-29–RF-31), liens/collateral source (RF-32–RF-35).

Each row in Section 11 of the output: ID | Name | Detail | Source | Suggested Attorney Action | Severity (H/M/L). Sort H → M → L. If a finding doesn't match any ID, mark it [NEW PATTERN — review needed] rather than inventing a permanent ID.

Step 7 — Identify Collateral-Source / Lien Interfaces

Identify lien holders (Medicare, Medicaid, ERISA plan, hospital/provider, workers' comp, VA/Tricare), record amounts asserted and notice status, and hand off to lien-resolution-summary. Do not negotiate, reduce, or resolve. Surface the billed-vs-paid jurisdictional rule for counsel; do not pick the measure unilaterally.

Step 8 — Produce Final Report

Follow references/OUTPUT-TEMPLATE.md section by section. Run the Pre-Delivery Checks at the bottom of that file before declaring the draft complete. The privilege header, citation format ([doc-label, p. N, Bates XXXXXX]), and the [F]/[A]/[O] tagging convention are non-negotiable.


Checkpoint B: Post-Draft Alignment (Mandatory)

After delivering the draft, ask:

  1. Additional providers or itemized bills still outstanding?
  2. Client explanation for any treatment gap > 30 days, or for pre-existing same-body-part care?
  3. Billed-vs-paid measure for this jurisdiction — which does counsel want presented as primary?
  4. Specific causation disputes (IME contrary opinions) requiring deeper analysis?

If no response: recommend obtaining the missing provider's itemized bills (highest-value gap) and flag the billed-vs-paid jurisdiction question as the next decision. Proceed with the draft as authorized.


Quality Audit

  • Every finding cites document, page, and Bates (or is explicitly labeled unbated and listed in Open Items)
  • Per-provider billing arithmetic reconciled in Section 7; deltas shown, not hidden
  • CPT/HCPCS codes validated against documentation; modifier use checked per references/CODE-VALIDATION.md
  • ICD-10-CM diagnoses match billed procedures; specificity and 7th-character encounter type checked
  • Causation screen applied to every charge; failures flagged with the appropriate RF-23–RF-28 ID
  • Reasonableness benchmark source named (FAIR Health, MPFS, state WC, EOB allowed amounts) and tagged [VERIFY]
  • Billed and paid carried as separate columns until counsel selects the primary measure
  • LOP-billed line items individually tagged; RF-12 considered for each
  • Red flags use stable IDs from references/RED-FLAGS-CATALOG.md, sorted H → M → L
  • Pre-existing same-body-part treatment distinguished from incident-related; RF-26 surfaced if not addressed
  • IME / peer-review opinions cataloged separately from treating physician findings
  • Lien holders identified in Section 12 only; not resolved (handed to lien-resolution-summary)
  • Jurisdictional rules flagged [VERIFY] (billed-vs-paid, hospital lien statute, statutory caps, No Surprises Act)
  • Missing records listed in Section 4 (Open Items); no findings made on absent records
  • No invented codes, FAIR Health percentiles, NCCI edit pairs, MPFS rates, verdict figures, or citations
  • Privilege header present; Section 15 attorney-review boilerplate present verbatim

Jurisdictional Flags

A short reference for the agent or paralegal to surface in Section 14. Not a substitute for counsel research. Every entry tagged [VERIFY].

  • California — paid-only measure for past medical specials per Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal. 4th 541 (2011) [VERIFY current law]
  • Collateral-source-rule jurisdictions (e.g., New York) — billed amounts may be admissible as evidence of value; collateral payments cannot be used to reduce [VERIFY current law in jurisdiction]
  • Reasonable-value jurisdictions — present billed, paid, and a UCR benchmark band; let the fact-finder decide [VERIFY current law]
  • Medicare Secondary Payer — 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b); Section 111 reporting; CMS conditional payment letter required before settlement when patient is a Medicare beneficiary [VERIFY current CMS process]
  • ERISA plan reimbursement — US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, 569 U.S. 88 (2013); FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52 (1990); made-whole and common-fund doctrines generally do not apply against self-funded ERISA plans [VERIFY plan language]
  • Hospital lien statutes — many states cap or reduce; cite the specific state statute and check perfection requirements [VERIFY statute]
  • No Surprises Act (federal, 2022 effective) — balance-billing protections for emergency services and out-of-network providers at in-network facilities [VERIFY current regs]
  • Letter of protection admissibility — many jurisdictions allow impeachment on referral source, factoring, and collection patterns; some recent appellate developments [VERIFY current law in jurisdiction]
  • Per diem / multiplier limits and statutory damages caps — vary by state and case type [VERIFY] (consult damages-calculator)

Anti-Hallucination Rules

  • Never invent CPT/HCPCS/ICD-10 codes, modifier meanings, or NCCI edit pairs
  • Never quote a FAIR Health percentile, MPFS rate, or hospital posted price not actually retrieved (cite URL/file/date or label "benchmark not obtained")
  • Never quote a causation statement that is not in the cited record
  • Tag every legal citation [VERIFY] unless it appears verbatim in a sibling skill in this repo
  • Distinguish fact ([F]), assumption ([A]), and opinion ([O]) in Sections 9–11 of the output

What This Skill Does NOT Do

  • Does not value the case (use damages-calculator)
  • Does not resolve, negotiate, or satisfy liens (use lien-resolution-summary)
  • Does not produce expert testimony — billing experts (CPC/CCS/CPMA) and medical experts are required for admissibility on contested issues
  • Does not opine on ultimate legal conclusions (liability, damages amount, causation in law)
  • Does not draft the demand letter, mediation statement, or trial exhibit list (use the named sibling skills)
  • Does not replace attorney review of the final memo

Attorney Review Required

This skill produces attorney work product. The memo derives entirely from documentation listed in its Section 2 and assumptions stated in its Section 3. Jurisdictional rules flagged [VERIFY] must be confirmed by counsel before reliance. No output of this skill may be sent outside the legal team without attorney review and approval.

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.

Habilidades Relacionadas