Chronology or LNC case analysis
Provides essential organization and issue spotting. The Full Intelligence Report adds physician synthesis across the connected medical questions that drive case selection, preparation, and expert escalation.
Seven components. Every intelligence layer in a single deliverable — from executive snapshot through expert readiness brief.
5-minute case understanding for the attorney. Injury mechanism, medical picture, and the clinical question at the center of the dispute.
Bates-numbered timeline of clinically significant events, providers, diagnoses, and treatment decisions. AI-assisted extraction verified by physician review.
Does the documented treatment tell a coherent story given the mechanism and pathology? Identifies where the narrative holds and where it creates exploitable inconsistency.
Complete documentation impact analysis of prior pathology. What the record shows and how the defense is likely to weight it.
Every gap in treatment, provider transition issue, and documentation inconsistency — mapped with the pressure it is likely to create at mediation or trial.
Utilization-review-informed mapping of where the record is most exposed. Ranked by pressure intensity.
Specialty match, key record issues the expert will face, clinical methodology and foundation concerns, and documentation that should be in place before expert engagement.
A CMIP engagement helps counsel decide whether specialist review is warranted and what documentation should be assembled before the expert begins. Firms may treat the fee as a case cost subject to their engagement agreement, applicable law, and case outcome.
The Full Medical Case Intelligence Report is intended for matters where a chronology alone is insufficient and commissioning several disconnected reviews would duplicate effort. It integrates the longitudinal record with causation, treatment, pre-existing disease, vulnerability, and expert-readiness analysis.
Complex files are frequently reviewed in fragments: a vendor builds a chronology, counsel identifies inconsistencies, a physician later examines causation, and a retained expert repeats much of the orientation work. The integrated report reduces that fragmentation by creating one indexed medical foundation from which the major questions are answered.
Comprehensive does not mean indiscriminate. The report is organized around the disputed issues and uses detail only where it changes the conclusion. Repetitive charting, copied problem lists, and routine normal findings are compressed; pivotal changes in symptoms, objective findings, treatment, function, and provider reasoning are preserved and sourced.
The engagement defines the injury theories, body regions, providers, date range, disputed services, and decisions the report must support.
Duplicate records, repeated histories, conflicting dates, and provider episodes are reconciled into a source map before analysis begins.
The chronology emphasizes changes that matter: onset, escalation, objective correlation, intervention, response, setbacks, function, and future plan.
Causation, pre-existing disease, treatment necessity, gaps, functional evidence, adverse reports, and documentation quality are evaluated together rather than in silos.
The executive section identifies what is strong, what is uncertain, what is vulnerable, and what record or expert action should occur next.
A genuine comprehensive report cannot be offered as unlimited review. The quote defines the record volume, providers, specialties, date range, imaging inputs, billing work, and revision assumptions.
The precise section order is adapted to the case, but the report normally provides an executive layer, a source layer, and an analytical layer.
A chronology tells what happened. The full report also explains why the sequence matters, how competing causal narratives fit the evidence, and what decision should follow.
Yes. Scope can be adapted when billing, prior history, expert readiness, or another component is not relevant. The engagement should still preserve enough connected analysis to avoid a misleading conclusion created by removing a component that materially affects causation or exposure.
No. The public floor assumes a defined, controlled file. Volume, providers, specialties, and analytical complexity determine the quote.
A focused supplement can address later records or a new adverse report. A major new treatment phase or theory may require a separately scoped update.
PI spine specimen and medical malpractice specimen both available. All seven components demonstrated.
When the dollar value of the medical specials is itself disputed, add Medical Charge & Necessity Review for a necessity-, coding-, and reasonableness-tested charge analysis alongside the seven-component report.
Seven components. Every layer. One deliverable.