A fixed-fee, 2-business-day workup designed for plaintiff med-mal attorneys facing or filing a Daubert motion. We dissect the opposing expert's report against the six Daubert exclusion patterns courts actually use, so you can prepare smarter and cross-examine harder.
Six work-products built around the patterns judges actually cite when they exclude med-mal experts under Rule 702. Each module is structured for direct use in your motion brief or your cross-exam binder.
Does the expert's training and current practice actually cover the procedure or condition at issue? We map their CV, board status, and recent publications against the standard-of-care question — and flag every gap a judge has cited as exclusionary in comparable cases.
The single most common reason general-causation experts get tossed: failure to rule out other plausible causes. We build a tailored differential for the case, then score how the expert handled each — point-by-point, with the report passages and depo lines to use against them.
Does the expert anchor to a specific, identifiable standard (guideline, peer-reviewed text, board criterion) — or to subjective “reasonable physician” rhetoric? We extract every standard-of-care assertion and score whether it survives a Rule 702 reliability test.
For toxic-tort, drug-injury, and medical-causation reports: a 9-criterion audit (strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, analogy) — with the studies the expert relies on cross-checked for whether they actually support the criterion.
Upload the expert's prior depositions or hearing transcripts and we surface the spots where their current report contradicts past testimony. Direct page citations, the exact words used, and a plain-English summary of the impeachment angle.
If the expert cites a meta-analysis or systematic review, we evaluate it against PRISMA-style criteria (search strategy, inclusion thresholds, bias risk) and flag where the expert overstates what the underlying papers actually support.
Outside Daubert drafters typically charge $2,000–$5,000 per workup, and many firms still pay it because the alternative is missing the motion. Our productized version is designed to land at a flat fee a partner doesn't need to approve, with a turnaround a deadline doesn't punish.
Outside-attorney Daubert drafters, billed hourly with multi-week turnarounds. Pricing typical of plaintiff med-mal practice; your case-cost line item is real.
A 10–15 page PDF plus an editable working file. Built so you can lift sections directly into your motion brief or cross-exam outline.
Cover sheet with case caption (or generic caption if you prefer), 1-page executive summary, then one section per deliverable. Each section ends with a “Use this in your motion” block — pre-formatted citations and proposed brief language.
Upload the opposing expert's report, the relevant deposition transcripts, and the complaint through the secure intake form. Tell us the deadline you're working against and which side the expert is on. Takes about 5 minutes.
Our analyst pairs the AI-assisted research engine with attorney supervision. You'll get a confirmation email when intake is received and again when the report is ready. Rush options available on request.
The PDF is ready to share internally; the .docx is built so your associate can lift sections straight into the motion brief. We'll also send the cross-exam question bank as a separate appendix.
One-time. No subscription required.
Confidential intake. We do not retain materials after delivery unless you request archival.