Medical records chronology samples, annotated by case type

By Ahmed Jemaa, Co-Founder and CEO of Medrecords AI. Updated 2026-11-14.

Limits: Every sample here is synthetic: no real patient, invented names and invented page numbers. Rules quoted for QME and Social Security work come from the cited regulation, read 2026-11-12; they are not legal advice, and facts about other sample libraries come from each publisher's page on that date.

Which sample do you need?

Pick the sample that matches the question you will sign an opinion on. If you examine a claimant for an insurer or employer, start with the IME sample. If you are a California panel or agreed evaluator, use the QME sample. If you write a treating source statement or review a Social Security file, use the disability sample. Claims staff and treating physicians in comp cases want the workers comp sample. Standard-of-care reviewers want the med mal sample, and life care planners want the life care plan sample. New to reading samples? Start with how to read a sample.

The 6 samples at a glance

Each sample is a short synthetic file: invented people, invented providers, invented page numbers. The rows are written to the standard we would want in a real file, and the notes explain the choices. Row counts are the rows in the published table; a real chronology for the same file would carry more.

How the columns change by case type

Every sample shares a base: date, source, record type, what the record says, and the page. Then each case type adds the columns its reader needs. The figure shows which sample adds which column. If you set up a house format for more than 1 kind of work, this is the map to start from.

2 patterns stand out. First, the exam and claim samples (IME, QME, workers comp) add columns about the claim: questions, authorization, work status. Second, the review and planning samples (med mal, life care plan) add columns about time or the future. A disability file sits in between: it is about function over time, so it tracks months and separates what the examiner saw from what the patient said.

What every sample on this site has

• A synthetic label at the top. Names, dates, providers and page numbers are invented. If a detail looks like a real person, that is chance.
• A page on every row. Grouped rows (a series of therapy visits) carry the full page range and the first and last values, so you can still open the source.
• Numbered annotations. Each note explains 1 choice: why a row quotes instead of paraphrasing, why a conflict is shown and not resolved, why a gap gets its own row.
• A timeline figure drawn from the same rows, so you can see the shape of the case before you read the table.
• No opinions. The chronology reports what the records say. Causation, apportionment, breach, need for care and disability are for the signing physician or the decision maker, and the samples leave room for them.

Where public sample chronologies fall short, checked 2026-11-12

We read every sample chronology that ranked in Google's top results for this phrase and 3 close variants on 2026-11-12. Most are personal injury samples from services that sell to law firms. Some sit behind a form. The free HTML examples either drop page citations or show 4 rows per case type with no note on why a row says what it says. Only 1 shows a Social Security file, as narrative entries with no page citations. None covers an IME, a California QME or a life care plan foundation.

Vendor samples have a second problem: they are chosen to sell. A service picks its cleanest file. That is fine, as long as you read the sample for its format and its habits, not as proof of quality on your files. The reading guide has a 12-point scoring checklist for exactly this.

How physicians use a sample library

4 jobs a sample library does well.

1. Setting a house format. An IME practice that also takes QME panels needs 2 formats, not 1. Copy the columns from the matching sample, then decide which ones your reports need.
2. Briefing staff or a vendor. Send the sample with the instruction "rows like these, with a page on every row". A finished example settles more questions than a written spec.
3. Checking work you did not do. If a nurse, a service or software built the chronology, compare it with the sample for the same case type. Missing columns are the first thing to spot.
4. Training a new reviewer. The annotations are the lesson. Each one names a habit: quote negatives, show conflicts side by side, group therapy series, mark signing times.

What the samples show about each case type

IME: tag every row to a question

The referral letter sets the job. In the IME sample, each row carries a tag (Q1 causation, Q2 reasonable care, Q3 prior condition, Q4 current status). A row with no tag is a candidate to cut. The sample also shows a 2023 shoulder injection that a 2024 history leaves out, set side by side rather than explained away.

QME: show who excerpted, and count the pages

California Labor Code 4628(c) says that if someone other than the physician excerpts prior records, the physician must review the excerpts. The QME sample adds a column for who excerpted each row and whether the physician checked it, plus an apportionment tag for factors the evaluator may weigh under Labor Code 4663. The records-reviewed list ends with the page total, because the ML201 code in 8 CCR 9795 includes 200 pages and asks for the page count to be verified under penalty of perjury.

Disability: function over months, with the source of each fact

Social Security requires an impairment that lasted or is expected to last at least 12 months (20 CFR 404.1509), and it weighs medical opinions mainly on supportability and consistency (20 CFR 404.1520c). The sample counts months from the alleged onset date on every row and marks whether a fact is an exam finding, a test result or a reported symptom.

Workers comp: work status is a column, not a footnote

The comp sample tracks 3 things beside the clinical story: what the doctor said about work, what treatment was requested and what was decided, and the date of maximum medical improvement with the rating method quoted. It also shows a restriction the employer could not meet, which changes the claim even though nothing medical changed.

Med mal: the clock and the signature time

Standard-of-care review turns on intervals. The sample runs to the minute across nursing flowsheets, orders, pages and notes, and it carries a second time for when each note was signed. A note written at 05:55 and signed at 14:12 is shown as both. The sample states what the produced chart shows and does not say whether anyone breached a duty.

Life care plan: a source for every future item

A plan that cannot point to a recommending note for an item is open to challenge. The sample pairs a short event chronology with a second table: each future care item, the clinician who recommended it, the frequency as written, the page, and whether it is in use, recommended or only "considered".

Limits of these samples

The files are short on purpose. A real QME file can run to thousands of pages, and a med mal production often has flowsheets with thousands of entries. The samples show habits, not volume. They also follow 1 jurisdiction where it matters (California for QME, federal rules for Social Security) and stay neutral elsewhere. Your state's comp rules, your carrier's IME instructions and your court's rules on expert disclosure come first. The rule citations were read from the source text on 2026-11-12 and are quoted for context, not as legal advice.

The samples are also clean in a way real files are not. Real records have illegible scans, fax headers that bury the date, notes copied forward for months and pages from another patient. The samples flag a few of these so you can see the notation, but they do not show the work of finding them. That work is the subject of other guides, and of the checks on the reading guide.

Questions about medical records chronology samples