AI tools for physician expert witnesses: dated table
Answer in brief: a physician expert needs at most 3 kinds of AI tool: a page-cited record tool for the file, a literature tool that links to real papers, and a general assistant under a BAA for low-risk work. Tools built for retaining law firms are a 4th group; they serve counsel, not you.
Limits: We read every rule, ruling and product page on the date shown and did not test any product with patient records. Court summaries here are not legal advice; how your court treats AI use depends on the jurisdiction and the judge, so ask retaining counsel.
How to read this table
Every fact comes from the vendor's own page, read on the date in the row. "Not stated" means we looked on the page linked and didn't find it, not that the product lacks it. We did not test any product with patient records. For each tool we ask the 3 questions that matter in litigation:
- Does the output cite the page of your file? If not, you can't trace a fact back to its source in front of a jury.
- Is there a BAA? Medical records carry protected health information. No BAA, no upload.
- What would you be producing? A chronology is easy to explain. A chat history full of leading prompts is not.
Record review and chronology tools
These read the record file. They are the tools that save a physician expert the most hours, and their output is the easiest to defend, because each line points to a page.
| Tool | Published price | Trial | Page cites to your file | BAA stated | Source, date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medrecords AI (ours) | 10 cents per deduplicated page, 8 cents at 100,000 credits, 5 cents at 500,000; a report is $10 | 7 days, 1 case, up to 1,000 pages, no card, after a demo | Yes, every output line | Yes, signed at signup | our page, 2026-11-12 |
| CaseMark | Medical chronology $25 + $0.01 a page, capped at $100 up to 25,000 pages; deposition summary $25 | Per-job try links | States cited treatment timelines | On monthly plans only | casemark.com, 2026-11-12 |
| OctopusLM | $0.10 a page; $0.05 with a $300 top-up; $0.04 with $4,000 | 1,000 pages | Yes, every line | Not stated | octopuslm.co, 2026-11-12 |
| InPractice | $150 for 1,000 pages down to $7,000 for 100,000 ($0.07); no subscription | 500 pages, no card | Not stated on the pricing page | Not stated on the pricing page | inpractice.ai, 2026-11-12 |
| MediScan | $169 a month for 1,200 pages, then 10 cents; $445 for 3,500; $665 for 10,000 | 15 days | Summaries linked to the original pages | Not stated on the pricing page | mediscan.ai, 2026-11-12 |
| Dodonai | Lite $25 a month billed annually ($300 a year), $0.063 a page for standard summaries | 7 days, 100 pages | Not stated on the pricing page | Not stated on the pricing page | dodon.ai, 2026-11-12 |
| esumry | Not published (demo) | Not stated | Report drafting "with links to the record" | Not stated on the page read | esumry.com, 2026-11-12 |
The catch with each: CaseMark's $100 cap makes it the cheapest listed for big files (a 5,000-page record works out to $75), and its BAA comes only with a monthly plan, so check that before uploading records. OctopusLM bills every uploaded page, duplicates included, and says so. MediScan's own FAQ calls its summaries "a starting point for professional review", which is the right framing for all of them. esumry pitches a workspace separate from retaining counsel's systems and tells experts to discuss AI use with counsel; its FAQ also notes that some courts have ordered prompts produced. Medrecords AI is ours: it doesn't bill exact duplicate pages, and it needs a demo before the trial starts.
Literature and evidence tools
These search published research. Use them to find papers, then read the papers. A literature tool's summary is not a source you can cite.
| Tool | Price | What it cites | PHI stance | Source, date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenEvidence | Not on the page read | Medical literature | Covered entities may send PHI under its standard BAA; SOC 2 Type II | openevidence.com, 2026-11-12 |
| Doximity Ask | Free on desktop and mobile | Inline citations to guidelines and studies, with full-text PDFs from 2,000+ journals | Says HIPAA-compliant | doximity.com, 2026-11-12 |
| Elicit | Free; $11, $39 or $89 per user a month, billed annually | Papers, across 138 million+ | Not stated; keep case facts out | elicit.com, 2026-11-12 |
| Scite | $12 or $40 a month, billed yearly | Smart Citation reports: how later papers cite an article | Not stated; keep case facts out | scite.ai, 2026-11-12 |
For standard-of-care work, the tool's date filter matters more than its model. You are judged on the standard in force when the care happened, so check the guideline edition and the paper's publication date against the date of care. Scite is useful in a different way: it shows whether later work supports or contradicts a paper, which is the question opposing counsel will ask about your key reference.
General assistants under a BAA
A general assistant is fine for Zone 2 work (mock questions, grammar, outlining a talk) if it is covered by a signed BAA and you would be comfortable producing the chat. These are the plans that offer a BAA, per each maker's own page:
| Product | BAA path | Watch for | Source, date |
|---|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT for Healthcare; ChatGPT for Clinicians | Organization BAA (Healthcare); individual BAA for verified US clinicians (Clinicians) | No BAA for Free, Plus, Pro or ChatGPT Business | help.openai.com, 2026-11-12 |
| Claude Enterprise (HIPAA-ready) | The organization's Primary Owner turns on HIPAA compliance and accepts the BAA | Standard Enterprise has no BAA coverage without that step; covered features are listed one by one | privacy.claude.com, 2026-11-12 |
| Microsoft 365 Copilot and Copilot Chat | Microsoft's HIPAA BAA comes by default through its Online Services DPA | The Weber expert used Copilot; the BAA does not make the math reliable | learn.microsoft.com, 2026-11-12 |
| Gemini in Google Workspace | An admin reviews and accepts the BAA in the Admin console before any PHI | Third-party add-ons are outside the BAA | support.google.com, 2026-11-12 |
A BAA solves the privacy problem, not the evidence problem. The Villanueva expert's ChatGPT history ran to 40 pages, and the parts holding case summaries he consulted had to be produced. A BAA-covered chat is still a chat.
Tools built for the retaining law firm
Several products in this market sell to plaintiff or defense firms and mention experts as an audience. They can be good tools, but they serve counsel's workflow: demand letters, cross-exam outlines, case value. If retaining counsel runs one and sends you the output, treat that output as material counsel provided. Under Rule 26(b)(4)(C), facts, data and assumptions counsel gives you and you consider are discoverable.
| Tool | Built for | What the page says | Source, date |
|---|---|---|---|
| ProvaLens | Law firms, flat firm price | Every answer cited to the page; BAA available; 30-day trial, no card; attorney in control | provalens.ai, 2026-11-12 |
| Supio | Plaintiff law firms | Says HIPAA and GDPR compliant and SOC 2 Type 2; price not published | supio.com, 2026-11-12 |
What we left out, and why
- Consumer chatbots (free and personal paid plans of ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini): no BAA, so no records.
- Expert-finding platforms: they help attorneys find you, not you do the work.
- Products whose pages we couldn't read on 2026-11-12: a tool missing from this table may be fine. Email us and we'll add it after reading its page.
Before you buy, run 1 closed case through your top 2 picks and check 20 chronology lines against the pages they cite. The workflow page shows how, on a synthetic record.