Aipedia: Doctors and medical practices
Doctors can use AI to help summarise records and draft medico-legal reports, but should tell instructing solicitors and must check every fact and reference. An expert report containing invented material can damage a case, a reputation and a GMC registration.
Part of: AI in doctors and medical practices
In short
Medico-legal experts use AI to summarise large bundles of medical records, build chronologies and draft personal injury, clinical negligence or insurance reports. At least one medical defence organisation requires members acting as experts to tell instructing solicitors when AI was used. GMP Domain 4 requires information to be accurate and not misleading, and GMC confidentiality guidance requires records to be protected. Generative AI can invent references and misread records. NHS indemnity excludes reports for insurers, so medico-legal work needs its own professional indemnity.
Medico-legal work involves reading hundreds or thousands of pages of records, and AI is well suited to the first pass. Experts use it to sort and summarise records, build a chronology of attendances and treatment, extract key test results, draft sections of a report and search for supporting literature. Some reporting platforms now include AI tools for these tasks. Doctors producing reports for insurers, employers or pension schemes use similar tools.
Illustrative scenario: an expert uses a generative AI tool to summarise a claimant's GP and hospital records and to suggest literature on recovery times. The summary misdates an earlier injury and the draft cites two studies that do not exist. The expert adopts both into the report. In cross-examination, the opposing barrister shows the references are fictitious and the chronology is wrong. The expert's evidence is discredited and the instructing party considers a claim against them.
Other risks include summaries that omit inconsistent entries, AI-generated opinion language the expert would not normally use, and AI tools that retain uploaded records. Because reports are relied on in litigation, errors can lead to wasted costs, complaints to the GMC and claims from the instructing party.
Expert evidence is tested in cross-examination, and an expert who cannot explain how a chronology or literature review was produced is vulnerable in cross-examination. The expert's duty is to give an independent opinion based on their own analysis. AI can speed up reading, but an opinion that reflects the tool's summary rather than the expert's own review of the records is unlikely to survive challenge. The safest approach is to treat AI output as a research assistant's notes that must be checked line by line.
Medico-legal work is not NHS clinical care. The NHS Indemnity arrangements exclude "Category 2" work such as reports for insurers, and CNSGP excludes private work, so experts need their own cover. A medico-legal professional indemnity policy usually responds to claims alleging negligent reports, subject to its terms, while one defence organisation's help is discretionary and its position requires experts to tell solicitors about AI use. Data breaches may be excluded from medical indemnity, so uploading records to an unapproved tool could leave a gap. See medico-legal professional indemnity and the expert witness PI guide.
See also chatbots for clinical questions, does medical indemnity cover AI, where NHS indemnity stops and the doctors AI hub.
Apex arranges professional indemnity for doctors who do medico-legal and expert work. A broker reviews your cover and how your policy treats AI-assisted reports; see AI hallucination liability.
Defence organisation guidance says experts must tell instructing solicitors when AI was used in medico-legal reports. Doing so in writing protects you, lets the solicitor raise any concerns and supports your credibility if the method is questioned in court.
Only to a tool with appropriate data protection safeguards that your instructing party has agreed to. GMC confidentiality guidance requires you to protect records against improper disclosure and take care in selecting systems. A public chatbot is unlikely to meet that standard.
No. NHS indemnity excludes Category 2 work such as reports for insurers, and state schemes exclude private work. Medico-legal experts need their own professional indemnity, which usually responds to claims about negligent reports, subject to its terms.
Tell us about your practice and the work you do. A broker will review how your current cover treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start an indemnity quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.