Most document platforms finish when the mail is filed to the right matter. That is where the actual work starts. Arcuity handles the mailroom and produces what your firm sends out — subpoenas, evaluator packages, chronologies, inconsistency statements, demands — every line of it traceable to a stamped page.
The applicant is a warehouse associate who reports a specific injury while lifting a 60-pound carton from a floor-level pallet. She felt an immediate onset of low back pain radiating into the left buttock, temporally consistent with the described mechanism of injury.BH1 She continued the shift and reported the injury the following morning.
MRI of the lumbar spine demonstrates a 4 mm broad-based disc protrusion at L5–S1 with mild bilateral neural foraminal narrowing. There is no evidence of nerve root impingement or frank radiculopathy on the current study.NEG Multilevel facet arthropathy and disc desiccation are noted.
In my opinion, 60% of the applicant's current lumbar disability is attributable to the industrial injury, and the remaining 40% is apportioned to pre-existing, non-industrial degenerative disc disease.§4663
The basis for this apportionment percentage is the patient's age and the radiographic degenerative findings.!R
Clean intake solves the first hour of a claim file and none of the rest. The mail is filed the same day, and the chronology still costs an associate a weekend. The prior-injury history still goes unbuilt. The brief on everything unrelated to the injury still does not get written, because it never does. The records still leave for the evaluator without anyone confirming that every discrete finding is in the package.
That is not a filing problem. It is the work — and it is the part that decides what the case is worth.
Grouped by where each one falls in the life of a claim. The first band is the part most platforms sell as their whole product. We treat it as the starting line.
Everything arriving by mail, email, fax, portal or scanner. Consolidated files split into their constituent documents, each typed, matched to its matter, named to your convention, filed to the right folder and put in front of the right person.
Necessary, and a commodity. We do it because everything below depends on a clean, complete, addressable file.
Identify every custodian the record implicates, and generate the subpoena to get their file.
The records nobody remembered to request are the ones that decide apportionment.
Prepare and execute filing and service of the resulting documents.
Closes the loop between deciding to request something and it actually being served.
Assemble the evaluator's records package and the interrogatories that accompany it.
The evaluator answers the questions you send. A weak question set is a weak report you then live with.
Evaluate what is about to leave the firm for a complete history of every discrete finding — before it reaches the evaluator.
A pre-flight almost nobody runs. A package missing a discrete finding produces an evaluation you cannot use, and you find out months later.
Reduce medical records, legal filings and government forms to what bears on one or more specific medical-legal concepts tied to the injury.
Turns a 4,000-page file into the file for this question — without discarding the rest.
Surface all issues bearing on causation, rather than the ones a reviewer happened to notice.
Causation is where the case is won, and it is buried across hundreds of pages by definition.
Evaluate the mechanism of injury on its own terms and test it against the account in the medical record.
A claimed mechanism the physics does not support is a defense case.
Every injury in the record on one timeline, prepared for attorney review for subrogation or apportionment.
Both turn on what happened before, and both fail on an incomplete chronology.
Evaluate medical reports for where the rating or methodology strays from the Guides.
A rebuttal generator. Drift is the most reliable basis for challenging an impairment rating, and finding it costs an expert and a weekend.
Full-history screen across the record, including prescription drug history — not just the claim window.
Pre-existing condition evidence is exactly what apportionment requires, and the claim file never volunteers it.
An indexed brief of all documents unrelated to the claimed injury, with verbatim summarization and a table of contents.
Proving what the record does not contain is how you close off an alternate theory — and it is the most tedious job in the practice, which is why it gets skipped.
A draft outline built from what the record actually contains.
Preparation compressed from days to a review pass.
Deposition testimony compared against the entire timeline, producing a statement of every inconsistency — hyperlinked and supported with verbatim page quotes.
Testimony that contradicts the record is the highest-value thing in any file. Here it arrives already cited to the page.
Demand or response, drafted from the analyzed record.
The valuation argument arrives assembled and cited, not reconstructed from memory.
Prepared and ready to file.
Procedural work that consumes attorney time and generates no fee.
Document-AI platforms built for legal intake are good at what they do, and most firms should have one. The differences below are not about accuracy at filing. They are about whether anything produced from the file can be defended after it leaves the building.
| Typical document-AI platform | Arcuity | |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Inbound handling — capture, classify, match, file, route | Inbound handling plus the outbound work product |
| What you receive | A correctly named document in the correct folder | A subpoena, an evaluator package, a chronology, an inconsistency statement, a demand |
| How answers are reached | Classifiers that retrain on user corrections, so behaviour shifts over time | Deterministic algorithms decide. Language models only phrase what was already decided and checked |
| Reproducibility | Re-running last year's document may not reproduce last year's answer | Same file in, same result out — engine and contract version recorded on every artifact |
| Provenance | A confidence score | Every statement resolves to a page, a Bates number, coordinates and a content hash |
| Completeness | Ranked lists, top results surfaced | Nothing is dropped. We rank, group and section — never truncate |
| Unknowns | A blank field | UNKNOWN is a value, and it is distinct from "nobody checked" |
| Finality | Output is output | Nothing is marked final until every completeness and legal check passes. Otherwise it says what is missing, on its own face |
| Image handling | One processed copy of the page | Two lineages — the evidence original is never the enhanced copy, and every transform is logged |
It does not disappear. The mail is filed same-day and the analysis queue grows instead. Covering the whole run — documents in to documents out — takes the drag out of the whole run, and for a firm that bills by the hour there are three places it lands.
The hours are already being spent; they are simply unbillable, and carriers will not pay for sorting and sifting. Every hour moved from administration to case work is an hour that can be invoiced.
Your best paralegal stops doing clerical work. The firm scales caseload without scaling headcount, and the people you most want to keep spend their day on work worth keeping them for.
The Munger brief. The completeness check. The inconsistency statement. The Guides review. Not deferred — never attempted, because nobody had the hours. A savings pitch has a ceiling. This does not.
A subpoena, an inconsistency statement or a demand is only worth having if it survives what comes back. These are architectural rules, not settings — each one written against a specific way this work fails.
Give us a single claim file and we will return the work product — the chronology, the causation issues, the completeness check — with every line cited to a stamped page. Then decide.