Medisprudence exists because of a specific payer-side physician-review background — and a commitment to following the analysis rather than a side. Plaintiff teams, defense firms, TPAs, and carriers all engage the same physician analyst under conflict-screened, separate engagements.
Dr. Kasturi is an MBBS physician (the primary medical degree equivalent in training level to the US MD in many Commonwealth medical systems) with a background that spans clinical medicine and US payer-side utilization-review work under InterQual and MCG. He founded Medisprudence to bring the documentation-threshold discipline developed through payer-side review into the litigation support market — where that perspective is directly useful to attorneys evaluating disputed medical records.
MBBS physician with clinical experience across internal medicine and multi-system pathology. Foundation for causation, mechanism, and treatment-record analysis.
Payer-side US claim review at scale. Applied InterQual and MCG criteria across 3,000+ cases. This is the defining credential behind the Medisprudence method.
Operational command of the US healthcare system — payer utilization management, claims adjudication, and the InterQual and MCG criteria carriers apply — with working fluency in HIPAA's PHI handling rules, so records are scoped, transferred, and reviewed within compliant safeguards.
Understanding of payer utilization management operations, claims evaluation, and how defense medical theories are constructed, from first-hand criteria application.
India-based operation disclosed before records are accepted. Cross-border processing disclosed before PHI is transmitted. AI use disclosed at the component level on every deliverable.
Medisprudence provides non-testifying medical consulting under attorney direction. No legal advice, patient care, independent expert testimony, expert affidavits, certificates of merit, or court appearances are provided.
On the payer side, physician reviewers evaluate thousands of claims against specific criteria — InterQual levels of care, MCG surgical appropriateness guidelines, and payer-specific medical necessity thresholds. The question in every review is the same question a defense IME physician asks: does this record document the clinical necessity for the treatment claimed?
After 3,000+ of those reviews, the documentation patterns that make a claim defensible and the gaps that make it vulnerable become precise and specific knowledge — not clinical opinion. Repeated review reveals which documentation gaps commonly drive medical-necessity disputes, how objective findings are weighed against symptoms, and when treatment intervals require further clinical explanation. Those patterns remain hypotheses to test against the facts of each matter—not universal rules.
Medisprudence does not use confidential, proprietary, or plan-specific information from any current or prior employer. All analysis is based on publicly available clinical guidelines and general utilization review methodology.
Bilateral service: Medisprudence serves both plaintiff and defense under conflict-screened, separate engagements. How we handle both sides →