skills/legal/damages-calculator/SKILL.md
Builds auditable personal injury damages calculations separating special damages (medical, wage loss, out-of-pocket) from general damages (pain and suffering) using multiplier and per diem methods. Trigger when the user mentions PI damages calculation, personal injury valuation, demand package damages, special damages compilation, general damages multiplier, per diem pain and suffering, collateral source analysis, comparative fault adjustment, lien accounting, net-to-client modeling, billed vs. paid medical expenses, future care present value, or building a damages section for a demand letter or mediation statement.
npx skillsauth add casemark/skills damages-calculatorInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Produces a defensible, auditable PI damages model: every figure traced to a source document, billed and paid columns carried, general damages justified by methodology, and adjustments (comparative fault, liens, caps) applied transparently.
Ask every time unless user says "use defaults" or "just draft":
Defaults if user doesn't respond: carry both billed and paid columns; present multiplier and per diem for general damages; flag comparative fault and liens for attorney resolution; flag jurisdictional rules [VERIFY].
Pause for missing categories before finalizing numbers.
Line-item table format: date, provider/source, amount billed, amount paid, causation notes.
Medical expense measure — critical decision:
| Measure | When | |---|---| | Billed charges | Collateral source rule jurisdictions (e.g., NY) | | Paid/incurred | Howell v. Hamilton Meats, 52 Cal. 4th 541 (2011) jurisdictions | | Reasonable value | Reasonable value standard jurisdictions |
If counsel cannot specify, carry both columns and flag for attorney determination.
Sections: A. Special damages (past/future medical, past/future wages, out-of-pocket, replacement services) · B. General damages (pain/suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment, disfigurement, consortium) · C. Adjustments (comparative fault, offsets, policy limits, liens, statutory caps)
Extract per line item: service date, provider, CPT/DRG code, amount billed, amount paid/adjusted.
Causation screen (all three required):
Flag items failing any criterion as "potentially contested."
Columns: gross billed → contractual adjustments → insurer payments → patient responsibility → outstanding balances/liens.
Ancillary: co-pays, Rx, OTC (if documented), DME, mileage, parking, childcare for visits.
| Type | Method | |---|---| | Hourly | Avg weekly hours × rate from pay stubs | | Salaried | Annual ÷ 52 | | Tipped/commission | Historical earnings documentation | | Self-employed | Tax returns + P&L (gross ≠ earnings); flag for expert if large |
Only calculate with evidentiary foundation. Typically requires expert testimony for admissibility.
| Source | Approach | |---|---| | Life care plan | Use plan categories and totals directly | | Specific recommendation | Unit cost × quantity; label assumption-based | | Vague reference ("may need surgery") | Do NOT assign dollar figure; flag for medical opinion |
Present value: Discount projected costs at appropriate rate; account for medical inflation. Flag methodology for jurisdictional verification.
Future earning capacity: BLS work-life expectancy tables. Without expert input, produce labeled "scenario analysis" (conservative/aggressive) with all assumptions marked.
Build harm narrative from records before calculating: pain duration/intensity, objective findings, treatment invasiveness, daily life disruption, permanency/scarring.
Total economic damages × severity factor:
| Severity | Range | Indicators | |---|---|---| | Mild/full recovery | 1.5–2× | Soft tissue, short treatment, full resolution | | Moderate | 2–3× | Extended treatment, residual symptoms, functional limits | | Severe | 3–5× | Surgery, permanent impairment, disfigurement, prolonged disability |
Never select a multiplier without articulating severity justification.
Daily rate by recovery phase:
| Phase | Rate | Example | |---|---|---| | Acute | Higher | $200–400/day | | Subacute | Moderate | $100–200/day | | Residual/chronic | Lower | $50–100/day |
Benchmark: plaintiff's daily earnings (a day of pain ≥ a day of work).
Present both methods. Convergence strengthens demand; divergence requires reassessment. Flag per diem trial permissibility — some courts prohibit per diem arguments [VERIFY].
Double-counting check:
Comparative fault:
| Regime | Rule | |---|---| | Pure comparative | Recovery reduced by plaintiff's % fault | | 50%-bar modified | No recovery if plaintiff ≥ 50% at fault | | 51%-bar modified | No recovery if plaintiff ≥ 51% at fault |
Present gross damages, then risk-adjusted range if fault disputed.
Collateral source: Show both billed and paid; flag recoverable measure for attorney.
Liens: Net-to-client sensitivity analysis when data available. Flag resolution steps (Medicare conditional payments, ERISA reimbursement).
Statutory caps: Uncapped value + capped maximum as separate lines. Flag med-mal caps, government entity limits [VERIFY].
Policy limits: Present full case value separately; note how limits affect demand posture.
Every figure must trace to a document. Missing documents → label as estimate.
Ask after delivering initial calculation:
If no response, recommend resolving billed-vs-paid (highest-impact variable) and proceed if authorized.
[VERIFY]Flag and resolve before finalizing:
[VERIFY] for any unconfirmed citation.[VERIFY].development
name: automated-contract-summary language: en description: Generates structured executive summaries of contracts using ML — captures key terms, party obligations, risk allocations, and compliance requirements in a standardized format. Optimized for high-volume review where speed and consistency matter. tags: - summarization - agreement - corporate --- # Automated Contract Summarization Produces standardized executive summaries of contracts using machine learning, capturing essential term
tools
Extracts regulatory obligations from dense regulations across jurisdictions. Breaks down multi-level regulations into clear article-level obligations, classifies applicability to a business, and prioritizes by risk level. Use when translating regulations into actionable compliance requirements.
development
Continuously monitors regulatory landscapes for changes relevant to a specific business. Ingests global regulatory updates, filters by relevance, summarizes impact, and produces an actionable change advisory. Use when tracking regulatory developments affecting a particular product or market.
testing
Compares an organization's existing compliance controls, policies, and procedures against extracted regulatory obligations to identify coverage gaps. Produces a remediation plan with prioritized actions. Use when assessing compliance maturity or preparing for regulatory audits.