Isolating the harm caused by the deviation from the underlying disease.

Breach is not causation. The hardest question in a med-mal matter is whether the injury traces to the provider departure or to the patient own underlying condition — and that is where defenses live. Justine will separate the two: tracing the clinical trend before and after the deviation, modeling the but-for course had the documented protocol been followed, and disentangling the harm the error added from pre-existing disease. Where the venue recognizes loss of chance, she frames the diminished outcome that way. Each link is shown with its evidence and where the defense will press.

What MM is designed to do.

1. 01

   Justine is designed to treat breach and causation as separate questions, isolating where the claimed injury actually traces to the documented deviation rather than to the patient’s underlying comorbidities — the analysis the defense will attack first.

2. 02

   The but-for course will be modeled against the record: tracing the relevant clinical trend before and after the deviation, and reconstructing the outcome had the documented weight-based or guideline protocol been followed instead.

3. 03

   Alternative-cause analysis will be explicit — pre-existing disease, intervening events, and the natural progression of the condition disentangled from the harm the departure added, so the causal chain is not overstated.

4. 04

   Where the venue recognizes loss of chance, Justine is designed to frame the reduced probability of a better outcome under that doctrine rather than forcing an all-or-nothing but-for theory the jurisdiction would reject.

5. 05

   Each causal link will be presented with its supporting evidence and a candid mark of where it is strong and where the defense will press — substantial-factor reasoning surfaced for the attorney to weigh, never asserted as settled.

The AI reasons; the attorney decides.