AI in Clinical Negligence and Personal Injury Claims – Where Can it Help?

By Daniel Coker, Underwriter

Estimate read time 2 minutes 23 seconds

For claimant personal injury and clinical negligence solicitors, the potential benefits of AI are easy to understand. Claims often involve large volumes of medical records, correspondence, expert evidence and disclosure documents. Anything that helps organise information more efficiently has the potential to save time and allow greater attention to be given to case strategy and client care.

There are already examples of AI being used to assist with reviewing records, identifying key dates, preparing first drafts of chronologies and highlighting areas that may require further investigation. In document-heavy cases, these tools can provide a useful starting point and help professionals work through large quantities of information more quickly.

However, while AI may help organise information, it does not remove the need for careful assessment and professional judgement.

This is particularly relevant in clinical negligence and serious injury claims, where the issues often extend beyond what can be captured in a summary or chronology. Questions of liability, causation and quantum frequently depend on detailed analysis of the underlying evidence, expert opinion and the specific circumstances of the case.

A chronology may identify when events occurred, but it cannot determine whether a clinician acted reasonably in the circumstances. A summary may highlight a potential issue, but it cannot resolve disagreements between experts or assess how a court may view competing evidence. Equally, technology cannot fully appreciate the impact that an injury has had on a claimant and their family.

From an underwriting perspective, these distinctions remain important.

When reviewing an application for ATE insurance, the focus is not simply on what the records say, but on what the available evidence means when considered as a whole. Medical records, witness evidence, expert reports and legal analysis all contribute to the overall assessment of risk.

Technology can assist with presenting and organising that information. It may even help identify issues that warrant further consideration. However, the ultimate assessment still depends on professional judgement from solicitors, counsel, experts and underwriters.

The legal profession is also becoming increasingly aware of the need to verify AI-generated outputs. Earlier this year, the Divisional Court in Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank highlighted the risks associated with relying on AI-generated legal research without appropriate checking and verification. The message was clear: technology can assist the process, but responsibility for the work remains with the professional using it.

That principle applies equally in clinical negligence and personal injury litigation.

The most effective use of AI is unlikely to be as a replacement for expertise. Rather, it is as a tool that supports experienced professionals by reducing administrative burden and helping them access information more efficiently.

What this means in practice

For claimant solicitors handling complex clinical negligence and personal injury claims, AI offers clear opportunities to improve efficiency in areas such as document management, chronology preparation and information review.

At the same time, claims involving complex medical evidence, disputed causation and significant future losses continue to require careful analysis and professional judgement. From an underwriting perspective, those factors remain central to the assessment of risk and prospects.

As technology continues to develop, the challenge is not deciding whether AI has a role to play. It is understanding where it adds value and where human expertise remains indispensable.

If you would like to discuss any aspect of ATE insurance or disbursement funding for clinical negligence and personal injury claims, please email john.durbin@temple-legal.co.uk