Workers' Comp Medical Records Analysis — Live Example
This is a real research project template built for workers' compensation attorneys. Walk through the entire pipeline — from uploading medical records, OSHA reports, and IME contradictions to AI-generated case evaluations and comprehensive medico-legal analyses. Everything you see here was created by the platform, not by a paralegal.
The AI wrote these. Every word.
Read what the platform actually produces.
14 source documents in — including medical records, OSHA citations, defense IME, and vocational evaluations. Two complete attorney-ready reports out. No human editing. No templates. Every citation traced to its source document.
This template demonstrates a complete workers' compensation medical records analysis for an industrial scaffolding fall. The corpus includes ER records, orthopedic surgical notes, neurosurgery consultations, neuropsychological evaluations, psychiatric records, physical therapy logs, prior medical history, defense IME report, treating physician rebuttals, a two-day FCE, employer incident reports, OSHA inspection records, vocational evaluations, and pharmacy records — the comprehensive record set for a contested WC claim.
Every document was OCR'd and classified automatically. The AI read all 14 documents, then ran 6 targeted analysis scenarios and 6 synthesis operations to produce strategic case intelligence — from IME contradiction matrices to lifetime medical cost projections to adversarial defense strategy predictions.
No coding or technical knowledge was used at any point. Every scenario, synthesis, and report was created using plain English instructions.
Analysis scenarios
Six targeted analysis scenarios examine the workers' comp records from different angles. Each one reads the entire 14-document corpus and extracts specific intelligence. Written in plain English — no code, no query language.
1
Medical Chronology & Causation Analysis
The foundation of any workers' comp claim. The AI constructs a unified chronological medical narrative from the moment of injury through the present, tracking each injury system — lumbar spine, right knee, right shoulder, traumatic brain injury, and PTSD — through diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. It establishes the temporal and mechanistic relationship between the 18-foot scaffolding fall and each diagnosed condition, while honestly addressing the pre-existing L5-S1 findings from 2019.
Construct a complete medical chronology for Martinez v. Continental Steel (WC-2025-0847291). Track all five injury systems from the November 15, 2025 scaffolding fall through the present.
For each injury system (lumbar spine, right knee, right shoulder, TBI, PTSD):
- Document every medical encounter with dates, providers, facility, and role
- Extract exact timestamps, mechanism of injury statements, and first complaints
- Track diagnostic imaging results with radiologist language
- Document treatment trajectory and surgical interventions
- Establish causal nexus between the fall and each condition
Special focus: The pre-existing L5-S1 disc bulge (2019 MRI). Analyze the different spinal level (L4-L5 vs L5-S1), different pathology (herniation vs bulge), the 6.5-year symptom-free interval, and the "unremarkable" L4-L5 finding on the 2019 MRI.
Output: Provider roster table, chronological timeline, causation analysis per body system, and identification of any gaps or inconsistencies.
Actual AI Analysis Output — Sources: 14 files | Model: sonnet | Time: 141s
Section 1 — Provider Roster
The analysis identified 11 treating and evaluating providers across multiple specialties — emergency medicine, orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, neuropsychology, psychiatry, physical therapy, and vocational rehabilitation — spanning from the moment of injury through June 2026. Each provider's facility, role, and estimated visit count was catalogued.
Key Causation Finding — L4-L5 vs L5-S1 Distinction
Confidence Level: HIGH
The pre-injury MRI dated February 8, 2019 documented a "mild diffuse disc bulge at L5-S1" while simultaneously describing the L4-L5 level as "unremarkable" [07-prior-medical]. By March 25, 2019, Mr. Martinez's symptoms had fully resolved, and he returned to full unrestricted work duties as a structural welder performing Very Heavy physical demand work. He worked without any documented back complaints for a continuous period of six years and eight months — from March 2019 until November 15, 2025. The post-accident MRI confirmed an acute traumatic disc herniation at L4-L5, a different anatomical level with distinct nerve root distributions, clinical presentations, and surgical approaches [03-neurosurgery-consult]. Dr. Sarah K. Williams, the treating neurosurgeon, explicitly addressed this distinction, stating that the L4-L5 herniation is "entirely related to the fall on November 15, 2025" and that the prior L5-S1 condition does not contribute to the current pathology.
[... continued in full report ...]
AI AnalysisCausation Chain
2
IME Contradiction Report
The defense hired Dr. Harrison to conduct an independent medical examination. His report assigned only 11% combined impairment and disputed causation, surgical necessity, and the severity of the TBI and PTSD. This scenario puts his report under a microscope — comparing every opinion point-by-point against the objective medical evidence, treating physician findings, and applicable medical literature. It caught a foundational anatomical error: Harrison conflated the L4-L5 acute injury with the pre-existing L5-S1 condition.
Conduct a comprehensive point-by-point contradiction analysis of Dr. Richard T. Harrison's April 14, 2026 IME report against the complete treating physician record.
For each disputed issue, produce a three-column analysis:
| Issue | Harrison Position | Treating Position | Supporting Evidence | Medical Literature |
Cover every disputed finding including:
- The L4-L5/L5-S1 level conflation
- TBI dismissal despite neuropsych findings (TOMM passed, FSIQ 105→94)
- PTSD skepticism despite DSM-5 criteria and no prior psychiatric history
- 11% combined impairment vs treating estimate of 42-55%
- Surgical necessity denial despite foot drop and failed conservative treatment
Also assess Harrison's methodology: examination duration, records reviewed, potential financial bias ($4,200 IME fee), and referral patterns with Midwest Mutual Insurance.
Actual AI Analysis Output — Sources: 14 files | Model: sonnet | Time: 144s
Contradiction #1 — Foundational Anatomical Error: L4-L5 vs L5-S1 Conflation
Severity: CRITICAL — Undermines Entire Report
Dr. Harrison attributes the current L4-L5 symptoms to the pre-existing L5-S1 condition without adequately accounting for the anatomical distinction. L4-L5 and L5-S1 are anatomically distinct spinal segments separated by an entire vertebral body, involving different intervertebral discs, different nerve roots, different dermatomes, and different surgical approaches. The 2019 MRI documented pathology at L5-S1 and described L4-L5 as "unremarkable." The post-accident MRI documented acute pathology at L4-L5. This is not an interpretive disagreement or a difference of clinical judgment — it is a factual error regarding which spinal level is involved [08-defense-ime; 07-prior-medical; 03-neurosurgery-consult].
Dr. Williams's rebuttal identifies this as a fundamental deficiency that renders Harrison's causation and treatment opinions unreliable [09-treating-response]. This error provides the claimant with a powerful cross-examination weapon and a basis for arguing that Harrison's entire report should be accorded minimal weight.
[... 6 additional contradictions analyzed in full report ...]
AI AnalysisAdversarial Audit
3
Disability & Impairment Rating
Using the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (5th Edition), the AI independently calculates whole person impairment ratings for each body system — lumbar spine (DRE Category V), right knee, right shoulder, TBI/neurocognitive, and PTSD. It shows the math, applies the Combined Values Chart, and compares the result against both the treating physician estimates and the defense IME's 11% rating. The projected 42–55% combined WPI tells a very different story than the defense's number.
Calculate permanent impairment ratings under the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th Edition, for all five injury systems in Martinez v. Continental Steel.
Per body system:
- Lumbar Spine: Apply DRE method. Determine DRE Category based on radiculopathy, EMG findings, foot drop, and instrumented fusion. Calculate WPI.
- Right Knee: Apply Chapter 17 for tibial plateau fracture with ORIF hardware. Calculate lower extremity impairment → WPI.
- Right Shoulder: Apply Chapter 16 for full-thickness supraspinatus tear post-arthroscopic repair. Document ROM deficits. Calculate upper extremity impairment → WPI.
- TBI/Neurocognitive: Apply Chapter 13 using neuropsych evaluation data (FSIQ drop 105→94, processing speed/working memory deficits).
- PTSD/MDD: Apply Chapter 14 for psychiatric conditions. Document GAF scores (45→50→55→52).
Combine using Combined Values Chart. Show all math. Compare with Harrison's 11% rating. Address MMI timing and apportionment.
Actual AI Analysis Output — Sources: 14 files | Model: sonnet | Time: 134s
Preliminary Note — MMI Status
As of the most recent documents (June 2026), Mr. Martinez has not yet reached MMI. The L4-L5 microdiscectomy with instrumented posterolateral fusion was scheduled for April 28, 2026. Post-fusion recovery typically requires 12-18 months to reach maximum medical improvement. These ratings are therefore projections rather than final determinations. The system-wide MMI date is projected at approximately April–October 2027.
Lumbar Spine — DRE Category V: 25–28% WPI
The lumbar spine rating reflects the combination of confirmed radiculopathy with EMG corroboration, severe neurological compromise (progressive foot drop), and instrumented spinal fusion resulting in loss of motion segment integrity. No apportionment to pre-existing conditions is warranted — the 2019 L5-S1 condition was at a different anatomical level, was fully resolved, and does not constitute a ratable prior impairment under AMA Guides §15.3.
Combined Values Chart: 42–55% Total WPI
The defense IME assigned only 11% WPI — a figure that is irreconcilable with the objective medical evidence and the FCE findings [08-defense-ime].
[... full calculation breakdown in report ...]
AI AnalysisAMA Guides 5th Ed
4
Future Medical Cost Projection
What will this injury cost over a lifetime? The AI projects total medical expenditures across all five body systems — lumbar fusion and potential revision surgery, ongoing pain management, knee hardware removal, shoulder maintenance, cognitive rehabilitation, psychiatric treatment, and medications. It applies a net real discount rate to produce present-value estimates ranging from $1.8M to $2.7M, and honestly addresses the uncertainty in long-term surgical outcomes.
Project lifetime future medical costs for Martinez v. Continental Steel across all five injury systems.
Patient parameters: Age 47, life expectancy ~33 years, work-life expectancy ~18 years.
For each body system, project costs for:
- Surgical procedures (primary and revision probability)
- Ongoing pain management (medications, injections, office visits)
- Physical therapy and rehabilitation
- Diagnostic imaging and follow-up
- Durable medical equipment
- Psychiatric treatment and medications
- Cognitive rehabilitation
Apply present-value discounting using a net real discount rate (medical inflation minus treasury rates). Include probability-weighted estimates for revision surgery (35-45% over lifetime). Compare cost of surgical path vs continued conservative management.
Output: Itemized cost tables by body system, present value calculations, and total lifetime medical cost range.
Actual AI Analysis Output — Sources: 14 files | Model: sonnet | Time: 138s
Lifetime Medical Cost Summary
Total Projected Range: $1.8M – $2.7M (present value)
Key cost components include: L4-L5 fusion and post-surgical rehabilitation ($112,250–$139,500 for the primary procedure); probability-weighted revision lumbar surgery ($60,000–$73,200 at 35-45% cumulative probability); ongoing pain management ($175,000–$250,000 over 33 years); knee hardware removal and potential knee replacement ($20,000–$75,000); ongoing orthopedic surveillance ($80,000–$120,000); cognitive rehabilitation and neuropsychological follow-up ($35,000–$55,000); and psychiatric treatment and medication ($120,000–$175,000 over 33 years). A net real discount rate of 1.5% was applied, reflecting the standard spread between medical cost inflation (~4.5%) and treasury-based discount rates (~3.5%).
[... full itemized tables in report ...]
AI AnalysisEconomic Projection
5
Vocational Impact & Earning Capacity
Roberto Martinez was a structural welder earning $87,000/year at a Very Heavy physical demand level. After the fall, his FCE documents a Sedentary-to-Light capacity with a 20-pound maximum lift — failing all 10 of 10 critical job demands. The AI analyzes the vocational catastrophe: limited English proficiency, no computer skills, 22 years of trade-specific experience that doesn't transfer to desk work, and cognitive deficits that impair retraining capacity. Projected lifetime wage loss: approximately $780,330.
Analyze the vocational impact and earning capacity loss for Martinez v. Continental Steel.
Pre-injury profile:
- Structural welder, DOT 819.384-010, Very Heavy PDL
- $87,000/year ($38.75/hour + overtime)
- 22 years continuous experience
- High school education, limited English proficiency, no computer skills
Post-injury profile (from FCE):
- Sedentary-Light PDL, 20 lb max lift
- Failed 10/10 critical welding job demands
- No overhead work, no climbing, standing 30 min max, sitting 45 min max
- Cognitive deficits (processing speed, working memory) from mTBI
- PTSD triggers related to heights and industrial settings
Calculate:
- Residual earning capacity ($32-38K range with retraining)
- Annual wage loss ($49-55K)
- Lifetime wage loss (20 years to age 67, present value)
- Lost benefits analysis
- Transferable skills assessment
- Labor market analysis for alternative occupations
Actual AI Analysis Output — Sources: 14 files | Model: sonnet | Time: 159s
Executive Summary — Catastrophic Vocational Loss
Roberto Martinez, a 47-year-old structural welder with 20+ years of skilled trade experience, has sustained catastrophic, polytraumatic injuries that permanently eliminate his ability to return to his pre-injury occupation or any substantially equivalent work. The FCE documents complete functional incompatibility with structural welding: the pre-injury job requires occasional lifting exceeding 100 pounds, while Mr. Martinez can manage only 20 pounds at maximum. The incompatibility extends across overhead reaching (contraindicated by rotator cuff repair), climbing and balancing (contraindicated by tibial plateau fracture and foot drop), sustained kneeling, and bilateral grip strength [10-fce].
The Vocational Paradox
Mr. Martinez's 20+ years of highly specialized trade skills are valuable within structural welding but are not transferable to sedentary or light-duty work without significant retraining. Compounding factors include limited English proficiency restricting service-sector options, cognitive deficits from mTBI impairing learning capacity for retraining, and PTSD triggers eliminating any employment involving elevated work or industrial settings [04-neuropsych-eval, 05-psychiatrist-records, 13-vocational-eval]. Projected lifetime wage loss: $780,330.
[... continued in full report ...]
AI AnalysisVocational Analysis
6
Comprehensive Case Report
The master synthesis — integrating all medical, vocational, employer safety, and defense-related findings into a unified case analysis. It proposes a total case value range of approximately $2.6M–$3.5M, identifies the OSHA violation history as a "narrative accelerant" for settlement leverage, and maps out the complete strategic landscape including surveillance risks and deposition targets. This scenario reads everything and connects everything.
Produce a comprehensive case analysis synthesizing all medical, vocational, employer safety, and defense-related findings for Martinez v. Continental Steel.
Include:
1. Total case valuation (conservative / expected / aggressive ranges)
2. Integration of OSHA violation history with case strategy
3. Employer conduct analysis (two prior citations in Bay 4)
4. Settlement vs litigation assessment
5. Defense strategy prediction
6. Surveillance risk assessment
7. Deposition targets and key questions
8. Expert witness recommendations
9. Timeline for case resolution
10. Intentional tort analysis under Ohio R.C. § 2745.01
This is the master reference document. Be exhaustive. Cite specific documents, dates, findings, and dollar amounts throughout.
Actual AI Analysis Output — Sources: 14 files | Model: sonnet | Time: 159s
Case Valuation — $2.6M–$3.5M Total Range
Based on the combination of projected lifetime medical costs ($1.8–$2.7 million), wage loss ($780,330), and permanent impairment compensation, the comprehensive analysis proposes a total case value range of approximately $2.6–$3.5 million. The OSHA violation history is identified as a "narrative accelerant" — not directly relevant to workers' compensation entitlement in Ohio's no-fault system but powerfully relevant to adjudicator sympathy, settlement leverage, and potential civil litigation avenues [12-osha-records].
OSHA Pattern — Same Bay, Same Violations, Same Result
OSHA records document two inspections of Continental Steel in the 30 months preceding Mr. Martinez's fall, both resulting in citations for fall protection and scaffolding deficiencies. Inspection #1652847 (March 2023) resulted in a $12,500 penalty. Inspection #1687412 (September 2024) — in the same Bay 4 — resulted in an $18,000 penalty. Combined penalties of $30,500 for repeat scaffolding violations establish a pattern of employer knowledge and failure to remediate [12-osha-records].
[... continued in full report ...]
AI AnalysisMaster Synthesis
Synthesis operations
Syntheses connect findings across all scenarios to produce strategic intelligence. Where scenarios examine individual dimensions, syntheses produce actionable work product — the documents an attorney actually uses to work the case.
S1
Defense Vulnerability Analysis
The AI assumes the role of an aggressive defense attorney working for Midwest Mutual Insurance and systematically identifies every weakness in the claimant's case. Pre-existing spine conditions, the delayed foot drop timing, mTBI recovery expectations, PTSD credibility challenges — every vulnerability is graded by exploitability and paired with the claimant's strongest rebuttal evidence. Know what they'll attack before they attack it.
Assume the role of defense counsel for Midwest Mutual Insurance. Identify every weakness, inconsistency, and vulnerability in the Martinez claim.
For each vulnerability:
- State the defense argument (verbatim attack question for deposition/cross)
- Grade exploitability (HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW)
- Identify the strongest rebuttal evidence from the record
- Note any gaps the defense will exploit
Cover: pre-existing L5-S1 and degenerative cascade theory, foot drop timing (5-month delayed onset), mTBI "mild" qualifier and expected recovery, PTSD credibility, FCE timing (post-surgical), non-compliance issues, surveillance risks.
This is for the claimant's team — anticipate everything so nothing is a surprise.
AI SynthesisAdversarial
S2
Executive Case Summary
A concise case evaluation memorandum for the managing partner or mediation preparation. Covers the case overview, key strengths, critical vulnerabilities, settlement range analysis, and immediate action items — all in a format designed for the attorney who needs to understand a complex polytraumatic WC case in 15 minutes.
Produce a case evaluation memorandum for Martinez v. Continental Steel.
Sections:
1. Case overview and claim status
2. Top 5 case strengths with citations
3. Top 5 vulnerabilities with mitigation strategies
4. Settlement range (conservative / expected / aggressive) with evidence basis
5. Immediate action items prioritized by urgency
6. Expert witness retention recommendations
7. Deposition strategy summary
Keep it tight. This is for a partner who needs to understand the case quickly.
AI SynthesisExecutive Level
S3
Comprehensive Medico-Legal Analysis
The full-length medico-legal analysis — integrating all 14 source documents, all 6 scenario results, and all synthesis findings into a single master reference document. Covers methodology, source tiering, medical chronology by body system, causation analysis, IME deconstruction, impairment ratings, future medical costs, vocational impact, medication review, case valuation, and strategic recommendations. Over 100,000 characters of deep analysis with triple-pass verification.
Create the DEFINITIVE comprehensive medico-legal analysis for Martinez v. Continental Steel (WC-2025-0847291). This is the master reference document for case evaluation, mediation, settlement, and trial.
THIS REPORT MUST BE AS LONG AND DETAILED AS POSSIBLE. Every section fully developed. Cite specific documents, dates, findings, and dollar amounts throughout.
Structure: Title Page → Executive Summary → Case Background → Employer Safety History → Medical Chronology (by body system) → Causation Analysis → IME Contradiction Analysis → Disability & Impairment Rating → Functional Capacity Analysis → Future Medical Costs → Vocational Impact → Medication Review → Case Valuation → Strategy Recommendations → Appendices.
WRITE EVERY SECTION IN FULL. BE EXHAUSTIVE.
AI SynthesisComprehensive100K+ Characters
S4
Evidence Gaps & Next Steps
What's missing from the record — and what to do about it. The AI identified 47 discrete evidentiary deficiencies across 9 categories, organized by impact on case value. Missing accident scene photographs, absent co-worker witness statements, incomplete inpatient hospitalization records, missing OSHA post-incident inspection data — each gap is assessed for severity and paired with a specific remediation action and deadline.
Conduct a comprehensive gap analysis for Martinez v. Continental Steel.
Identify every missing document, unresolved question, and evidentiary deficiency across all 14 source documents and 6 scenarios.
For each gap:
- Description of what's missing
- Impact on case value (CRITICAL / SIGNIFICANT / MINOR)
- Specific action to remediate
- Responsible party (counsel, paralegal, investigator)
- Deadline recommendation
Categories: accident scene evidence, witness statements, medical records, expert infrastructure, economic documentation, regulatory records, surveillance preparation, timeline vulnerabilities, discovery needs.
AI SynthesisGap Analysis
S5
Discrete Findings Index
All 68 discrete findings extracted from scenario analyses, organized by category — Medical Findings, Employer & Safety Findings, Vocational Findings, Defense IME Findings, and Evidentiary Findings. Each finding is tagged with confidence level, source documents, supporting evidence count, and counter-evidence. This is the structured fact base that powers every other synthesis and report.
Extract and organize every discrete finding from all 6 scenario analyses.
For each finding:
- Finding ID and text
- Confidence level (HIGH / MODERATE / LOW)
- Category (Medical, Employer/Safety, Vocational, Defense IME, Evidentiary)
- Source scenarios and documents
- Counter-evidence and caveats
- Cross-references to related findings
Organize by thematic category:
1. Injury Causation and Medical Evidence
2. Treatment and Surgical Necessity
3. Impairment and Functional Capacity
4. Vocational and Economic Impact
5. Employer Conduct and Safety History
This is the structured fact base for the entire case.
AI Synthesis68 Findings
S6
Document Preparation Package
A complete litigation preparation package: prioritized action items organized into tiers (Critical/30 days, Important/60 days, Strategic/90 days, Long-term/12+ months), deposition outlines for the defense IME doctor and employer witnesses, expert retention schedules, subpoena targets, and a mediation exhibit checklist. The AI turns analysis into a step-by-step action plan.
Produce a complete document preparation and litigation action package for Martinez v. Continental Steel.
Tier 1 — Critical (30 days): Litigation hold letter, subpoenas, OSHA FOIA, scaffolding expert, missing medical records, life care planner
Tier 2 — Important (60 days): Harrison deposition, pre-existing condition discovery, independent spine surgeon, surveillance preparation
Tier 3 — Strategic (90 days): Intentional tort evaluation, trial themes, neuropsych follow-up planning, vocational rebuttal
Tier 4 — Long-term (12+ months): Final impairment ratings, settlement negotiation, adjacent segment monitoring
For each action item: description, rationale, specific steps, responsible party, deadline, and the gap or vulnerability it addresses.
AI SynthesisAction Plan
AI-generated reports
Reports aren't just a dump of scenario results. The AI performs its own additional analysis and synthesis on all collected data to produce coherent, professional documents. Reports can be regenerated as new data is added, or saved as-is for historical reference.
R
Case Evaluation Memorandum
A focused, attorney-ready case evaluation covering the key findings, case strengths and vulnerabilities, strategic recommendation, and damages overview. Designed for the attorney who needs to understand a complex polytraumatic WC case in 15 minutes. Includes the complete medical chronology, causation analysis, IME contradiction summary, and immediate action items.
Classification: Attorney-Client Privileged / Attorney Work Product Sections: Case Overview → Injury Summary → Causation Analysis → IME Contradiction Matrix → Damages Overview → Strategic Recommendation
The full analysis — a publication-ready, comprehensive medico-legal report covering every aspect of the case in exhaustive detail. Over 100,000 characters of deep analysis including complete medical chronology across all five body systems, causation evidence chains, IME contradiction deconstruction, AMA Guides impairment calculations, future medical cost projections, vocational impact assessment, OSHA violation pattern analysis, medication management review, case valuation, and tiered strategic recommendations.
This report is generated by the AI reading all scenarios, all syntheses, all findings, and all 14 source documents — then producing its own integrated analysis with additional cross-referencing and strategic insights not found in any individual scenario. It's not a concatenation of results. It's a new analytical product.
Legal research can't afford hallucinations. AI models make things up — invented case citations, swapped plaintiff and defendant names, fabricated holdings. We built a multi-layered verification system specifically to eliminate this.
3x
Triple Verification — Pro, Antagonist, Neutral
Every critical analysis runs three times through three different lenses. The Pro pass builds the strongest case for the finding. The Antagonist pass tries to tear it apart — actively looking for contradictions, weak sourcing, and logical gaps. The Neutral pass evaluates both positions without advocacy. Only findings that survive all three passes are marked as verified.
This isn't just running the same query three times. Each pass has different instructions, different evaluation criteria, and different objectives. The system detects hallucinations by cross-checking claims across passes — if the Pro pass cites evidence that the Antagonist pass can't find in the corpus, it's flagged immediately.
The verification framework is fully customizable in plain English. Adjust the lenses, add domain-specific checks, or create entirely new verification patterns — all through natural language instructions.
AI VerificationHallucination DetectionCustomizable
⚠
Legal-Specific Error Prevention
General-purpose AI models make errors that are catastrophic in legal work. Our system has built-in safeguards for the errors that matter most in legal research:
✗ Swapped parties — AI confuses claimant and employer, attributes claims to the wrong side. ✓ Our system validates party attribution across all outputs.
✗ Invented citations — AI generates case names, docket numbers, or holdings that don't exist. ✓ Triple verification cross-checks every citation against the actual corpus.
✗ Conflated medical levels — AI confuses L4-L5 with L5-S1, mixes body parts, swaps injury dates. ✓ Source attribution traces every medical claim back to a specific document.
✗ Fabricated holdings — AI states a court ruled one way when it ruled the opposite (or never ruled at all). ✓ Adversarial pass specifically challenges legal conclusions.
✗ Confident nonsense — AI presents fabricated information with high confidence and no hedging. ✓ Confidence scoring + bias detection flags unsupported certainty.
⚡
Multi-Model Intelligence
Different tasks need different levels of AI capability. We use multiple AI models strategically — matching the right model to the right task to optimize both accuracy and cost.
You choose the model tier per scenario, or let the system select automatically based on task complexity. We're adding specialized models frequently — including specialized models optimized for sensitive data. Cost management is built in: routine work runs on efficient models, critical analysis gets the deep thinkers.
Multi-ModelCost Optimization
⚡ Highly Recommended Reading
How we combine triple verification, multi-model intelligence, bias detection, hallucination prevention, and cost management into a unified AI reliability system — and how it compares to LexisNexis, Westlaw, and other legal research platforms.
Everything you just read — every scenario, every synthesis, every finding, every source citation — the AI chat knows all of it. It's not a search bar. It's a research partner that has read every document in your project, understands every conclusion it drew, and can take it further on demand.
The chat takes the research further
The reports and scenarios are the foundation. The chat is where research becomes interactive — where you push deeper, challenge assumptions, and produce work product you didn't even plan for.
💬 Build and refine the project through conversation
Don't know where to start? Tell the AI what you're working on and it helps you design the research — what scenarios to run, what to look for, what questions to ask. It suggests angles you haven't considered based on what it's already found in the documents.
I've got a WC case — scaffolding fall, multiple injuries, defense IME that looks wrong. 14 documents uploaded. Where do I start?
I've scanned all 14 documents. You have strong ER records and a detailed neurosurgery consult, but I noticed the defense IME conflates two different spinal levels — L4-L5 and L5-S1. That's a critical error. I'd recommend running the IME Contradiction scenario first to build your attack framework, then the Medical Chronology to establish your causation chain. Want me to queue all six scenarios?
Yeah, run everything. And flag anything the OSHA records connect to.
Done. I found two prior OSHA citations — both for scaffolding and fall protection in the same Bay 4 where your client fell. Combined penalties of $30,500 that the employer paid and apparently never fixed. That's a pattern. I've queued all 6 scenarios and 6 synthesis operations. Running now — full results in about 15 minutes.
🎯 Deconstruct the defense IME in real time
The AI doesn't just flag errors — it builds your cross-examination strategy. Ask it to find every contradiction in the defense doctor's report and it produces a point-by-point matrix with the treating physician evidence that destroys each opinion. Ask it what the defense will argue next and it predicts their strategy based on the record.
Harrison says the lumbar condition is pre-existing. What's our best counter?
Harrison conflated the spinal levels — that's your nuclear weapon. The 2019 MRI shows pathology at L5-S1, not L4-L5. The L4-L5 level was explicitly described as "unremarkable" on the same MRI. Your client then worked 6.5 years of Very Heavy duty with zero back complaints. The post-accident MRI shows acute pathology at L4-L5 — a completely different level. Dr. Williams addressed this directly in her May 12 rebuttal. Harrison either didn't read the 2019 MRI or didn't understand it.
What about the foot drop? Defense will say it should have appeared immediately if the herniation was traumatic.
That's their strongest argument — and it's rebuttable. Progressive neurological deterioration from disc herniation with gradual nerve root compression is a well-recognized clinical phenomenon. The PT notes show 28 visits over 4 months — we should review each one for serial lower extremity strength measurements showing gradual decline. Even subtle changes from 5/5 to 4+/5 to 4/5 would demonstrate a progressive trajectory. I'd recommend Dr. Williams provide a supplemental narrative specifically addressing this mechanism.
📝 Generate documents and strategy on demand
Need a deposition outline? A mediation brief? A demand letter with lifetime cost projections? The AI drafts it using everything it knows about the case — every medical finding, every dollar amount, every OSHA citation. Not a template. A document written from the actual evidence.
Draft me the Harrison deposition outline — focus on the spinal level error and his financial relationship with Midwest Mutual.
Done — 12 topic areas with specific questions. I've structured it to lock him into the L4-L5/L5-S1 conflation early, then force him to explain his impairment calculation math under the AMA Guides. I've also included questions about his examination duration, records reviewed, and total fees from Midwest Mutual. Want me to also draft the scaffolding expert engagement letter?
Yes. And give me a settlement demand framework using the $2.6-3.5M valuation range.
Both done. The demand framework includes the $1.8-2.7M future medical projection, the $780K wage loss, and the impairment compensation — with the OSHA violation history as the narrative accelerant. I've timed the recommended demand for after MMI but before hearing, with a mediation exhibit package checklist. Ready for review.
Not just legal. Any research, any field.
This example shows workers' compensation medical research, but the platform works for any kind of research project. The same pipeline — upload documents, AI analysis, interactive chat, comprehensive reports — adapts to any discipline.
⚖️ Legal Research
Case law analysis, contract review, regulatory compliance, discovery processing, deposition prep, personal injury medical records — any legal research project with documents to analyze.
🏥 Medical & Clinical
Literature reviews, clinical trial analysis, treatment comparisons, diagnostic research. The AI reads medical literature and synthesizes findings across hundreds of papers.
📚 Academic & Scientific
Thesis research, systematic literature reviews, citation analysis, methodology documentation. Academic-ready output with proper source attribution.
📊 Business Intelligence
Market research, competitive analysis, due diligence, vendor evaluation, M&A analysis. Feed it data and get structured, actionable conclusions.
🔍 Investigative
Journalism, fraud investigation, compliance audits, whistleblower cases. Organize scattered sources into coherent intelligence with full audit trails.
✍️ Literary & Creative
Novel research, historical accuracy, world-building, biographical research. From a personal passion project to a professional publication — the same tools apply.
From one page to thousands
This example uses 14 source documents. The same platform handles projects with hundreds or thousands of documents — years of medical records, boxes of discovery materials, entire research libraries. The OCR pipeline processes everything automatically, and the AI scales its analysis to match the corpus size. And the chat is always there — your always-on research assistant that has read everything and remembers every detail.
Want to see the full demo?
We'll walk you through a live research project with your own data.