Workflow
An AI medical chronology turns hundreds of record pages into a dated, cited timeline of care. The platform sorts records by provider, extracts each visit, cites the source page, and flags gaps in treatment, prior conditions, and billing mismatches. Your reviewer checks the work, and attorneys decide what it means for the case.
Medical chronology · Delacroix v. Fenwick Packaging
A chronology is only useful if a busy attorney can trust it at a glance and verify it in seconds. These are the parts the platform prepares in every chronology, arranged in the order and style your firm already uses.
Each entry starts with the date of service and the provider who saw the patient. The platform separates the visit date from the date a record was printed, signed, or faxed, since those often differ.
When a single note covers several dates, it splits them into separate entries. When a date is unclear or missing, the entry is flagged rather than guessed.
For each visit, the chronology records what the patient reported, what the provider found, and the diagnosis as written. Wording stays close to the chart, so a reviewer can match the entry to the page without translation.
Imaging results, test values, and work restrictions are captured as stated in the record. The platform does not interpret findings or offer a medical opinion.
Procedures, injections, surgeries, therapy plans, and prescriptions appear as their own entries. Referrals get special attention, because a referral that leads nowhere is often the first sign of a missing record.
If a therapy plan calls for 12 visits and the file holds six notes, the chronology says so.
Every entry points to the page it came from, using your firm’s numbering: Bates numbers, record set page numbers, or provider and page. A reviewer can open the page and confirm the entry in seconds.
Entries without a source are not allowed. If the platform cannot tie a fact to a page, it lists that fact as an exception for a person to resolve.
Breaks in care matter in injury and benefits claims, and the other side will look for them. The platform marks any gap longer than the threshold your firm sets, such as 30 or 60 days between visits.
It notes what came before and after the gap so the reviewer can see whether records are missing or the client simply paused care. The attorney decides how to address it.
Past medical history, earlier complaints to the same body part, and prior claims often appear deep in intake forms and history sections. The platform pulls these mentions into a separate list with their source pages.
It does not decide whether a condition is related to the incident. That question belongs to the attorney, the treating providers, and any retained experts.
Firms have strong opinions about format, and they should. The right shape depends on who reads the chronology and what they need from it. The platform builds whichever format your templates call for.
A table lists date, provider, event, and source in columns. It is fast to scan, easy to filter, and simple to check line by line. Many case managers prefer it for active treatment and for spotting gaps.
Firms often add columns for body part, visit type, or billed amount so the same table can support later work.
A narrative tells the treatment story in short paragraphs, grouped by provider or by phase of care. Attorneys often want this version before a client meeting, a mediation, or a call with an adjuster.
The narrative still cites pages. It reads like a memo but stays tied to the record.
A provider list names each facility and clinician, the dates they treated the client, and which records and bills are on file. It doubles as a checklist for records requests.
When a new provider appears in a referral or a pharmacy history, it is added to the list with a status of “not yet requested.”
Some matters need a narrower view: every entry about the lumbar spine, every mention of a fall risk, or every note on work status. The platform can build a filtered chronology around one issue while keeping the full version intact.
This helps attorneys prepare for depositions, expert calls, and independent medical exams.
Bills and charts rarely line up on their own. The platform matches each billed date of service to a chart entry and lists the items that do not match: charges with no record, records with no charge, and duplicate billing lines.
Your team confirms every figure. The summary shows where to look, not what the claim is worth.
Many firms ask for all of it at once: a one-page narrative on top, the full table beneath, then the provider list, the flags, and the billing summary. One packet, one review, one approval.
The order and headings follow your template, so the packet looks like your firm made it.
Select an output to see what returns to your reviewer. Every example below uses an invented matter.
| Date | Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 01/08/2025 | ER visit. Neck pain after rear-end collision. | p. 4 |
| 01/15/2025 | Primary care. Muscle relaxant prescribed. | p. 17 |
| 01/29/2025 | Cervical MRI. Disc findings at C5-6. | p. 26 |
| 04/10/2025 | Pain management visit. 71 days since last care. | p. 39 |
| 04/24/2025 | Injection performed. Follow-up in four weeks. | p. 52 |
| Record | Mention | Source |
|---|---|---|
| ER intake form | Denies prior neck injury. | p. 5 |
| Primary care history | Neck stiffness noted at 2022 physical. | p. 15 |
| Chiropractic note | Treatment in 2019, region not stated. | p. 61 |
| Pharmacy history | No related fills before 2025. | p. 70 |
| Relatedness | Reserved for the handling attorney | Attorney |
| Provider | Dates | Records |
|---|---|---|
| Occupational clinic | 02/14/24 to 02/28/24 | Complete |
| Hand specialist | 03/01/24 to 05/16/24 | Complete |
| Neuro diagnostics | 03/12/24 | Complete |
| Therapy center | 04/02/24 to 06/20/24 | Partial |
| Pharmacy | Not yet requested | Open |
| Billed item | Chart match | Status |
|---|---|---|
| ER facility charge | ER chart, p. 4 | Matched |
| MRI, cervical | Imaging report, p. 26 | Matched |
| Office visit 03/06/25 | No chart for this date | No record |
| Injection, 04/24/25 | Procedure note, p. 52 | Matched |
| Injection, 04/24/25 | Second billing line | Duplicate |
The workflow follows the steps a careful paralegal would take. The difference is that the sorting, reading, and first draft happen while your team works on other files.
A case manager assigns the task and points to the records in the matter. Records can be portal downloads, faxed sets, scanned charts, or a single large PDF from a copy service.
The assignment can include instructions, such as “focus on the left shoulder” or “start from the date of injury.”
The platform sorts pages by provider and date, groups duplicate copies of the same note, and flags pages it cannot read clearly. Handwritten notes and poor fax copies go to the exception list instead of into the timeline as guesses.
It then reads each record and extracts the facts your template asks for.
Entries are written in the style your firm uses, with your abbreviations, your column order, and your citation format. If your firm wants plain language for client meetings, the narrative can be written that way.
Flags for gaps, prior history, and billing mismatches are collected in one place for the reviewer.
The finished chronology returns to the reviewer you choose, with the exception list on top. The reviewer approves it, returns it with notes, or sends it to the attorney.
Notes from review are used to adjust the configuration, so the next chronology fits your standard more closely.
A chronology supports legal work. It does not do the legal thinking. These are the checks that stay with your people, and the platform is built to make each one faster.
Reviewers open a sample of entries and confirm each one against its cited page. Firms usually check every flagged entry and a set share of the rest. Because every line has a citation, a spot check takes seconds, not a search through the file.
The attorney asks whether the file holds everything it should. The provider list and the referral flags answer that quickly. Missing records are requested before anyone relies on the timeline for a demand, a deposition, or a settlement call.
Whether an injury is related to the incident, and how a prior condition affects the claim, are legal and medical judgments. The platform gathers the evidence on both sides with sources. The attorney and the experts decide what it shows.
An internal chronology and an exhibit attached to a demand are different things. The attorney decides what is shared outside the firm, how it is framed, and what is left out. Nothing leaves the firm without that approval.
Medical records drive outcomes in several kinds of practice. The core workflow stays the same, while the focus and flags change with the matter type.
Injury firms use chronologies to prepare demands, answer adjuster questions, and keep treatment on track. Gap flags and billing reconciliation matter most here, because both shape how insurers read the claim.
Firms evaluating possible medical negligence claims need a precise, minute-level record of what happened and when. The platform can build a detailed timeline of orders, notes, and results for attorney and expert review. Standard-of-care opinions stay with qualified experts.
Benefits claims turn on work status, restrictions, and the link between job duties and injury. The platform can add columns for work status and restrictions, and track each change from visit to visit.
In litigated matters, chronologies support depositions, expert disclosures, and motions. Defense teams use the same workflow to organize a plaintiff’s records and prior history for attorney review.
Illustrative figures that show a possible result for a firm preparing eight chronologies a month. Not a client result and not a promise of future outcomes.
Illustrative figures to show the case-study format. Not a client result and not a promise of future outcomes.
A pilot should prove value with your own files, not with outside claims. These are the measures we track with your team during a 30-day single-workflow pilot.
The clock starts when the last record set lands in the file and stops when a reviewer approves the chronology. This is the number that tells you whether cases move faster.
Fast drafts mean little if review takes as long as the old way. We track how long reviewers spend on each output and how many entries they change.
We count how many gap, prior-history, and billing flags led to real action, such as a records request or an attorney note. Useful flags build trust. Noisy flags get tuned.
Before the pilot starts, your team picks the targets that matter. If the workflow does not meet them, we adjust it with you or tell you plainly that it is not a fit.
Bring a sense of your monthly record volume and how chronologies are built today. In one short session we map the workflow, note where review time goes, and show what a pilot on your matters would measure.
It is a dated timeline of a client’s medical care, prepared by software from the records in the file. Each entry lists the date, provider, and event, and cites the source page. A trained reviewer checks the work, and attorneys decide how the chronology is used in the case.