Find what the plaintiff's records actually say — not what their attorney claims they say.
Plaintiff firms use AI to generate demand packages in minutes. Your team spends days manually reviewing the same records. ChartRecon analyzes the complete medical record for clinical inconsistencies, documentation gaps, and guideline deviations — then produces defense arguments with page citations.
Clinical analysis engine designed by a physician with 15+ years of medicolegal experience — because finding inconsistencies in medical records requires medical judgment, not just document processing.
Sample output
1. Clinical inconsistencies tied to record citations
Flags mismatches between subjective complaints and objective findings, with page citations for both the complaint and the exam findings.
2. Treatment guideline deviations and documentation patterns
Identifies copy-paste progress notes, diagnosis creep, and care plans that conflict with published clinical guidance.
3. Cross-provider contradictions and billing anomalies
Shows when providers documenting the same patient disagree, and when billing patterns stray from usual and customary norms.
What the platform finds
The clinical intelligence that changes case outcomes.
1. Inconsistencies between subjective complaints and objective findings
The patient reports 8/10 pain and inability to walk. The physical exam on the same visit documents full range of motion, normal strength, and normal gait. The provider's own exam contradicts the patient's reported symptoms. The platform flags the discrepancy with page citations to both the subjective report and the objective findings.
2. Documentation patterns that undermine clinical credibility
Exam notes that are identical word-for-word across 15 consecutive visits. Diagnoses that escalate from strain to herniation without new imaging. Treatment plans that never change despite months of documented non-improvement. The platform identifies copy-paste documentation, diagnosis creep, and treatment stagnation — patterns that suggest documentation is being maintained for litigation rather than clinical purposes.
3. Deviations from accepted treatment guidelines
47 physical therapy visits over 8 months when guidelines recommend a maximum of 24 with reassessment at 6 weeks. A third epidural injection when the first two produced no documented relief. Passive modalities billed for 6 months when guidelines say discontinue after 4 weeks. The platform scores treatment decisions against published clinical guidelines and flags deviations.
4. Cross-provider contradictions
The chiropractor documents severely restricted cervical range of motion. The orthopedist examines the same patient the same week and documents mildly restricted motion. Two providers, same patient, same week, dramatically different findings. The platform cross-references exam findings across all providers by body region and date.
5. Pre-existing condition mapping with causation analysis
Not just "pre-existing condition noted." The platform builds a complete pre-accident medical profile by body region, then compares post-accident complaints to the pre-existing baseline. It identifies which findings predate the accident, which may be new, and what additional evidence would resolve the question.
6. Billing anomalies and treatment appropriateness flags
Charges that deviate significantly from usual and customary rates for the geographic region and procedure code. Facility fees that exceed Medicare reimbursement by 10x or more. Every visit billed at the highest E&M code regardless of complexity. The same passive modalities billed on 100% of visits for months. The platform identifies billing patterns that deviate from accepted norms and flags treatment patterns consistent with revenue-driven care rather than clinically-driven care.
7. Life care plan cost and clinical reasonableness analysis
When the plaintiff submits a life care plan projecting hundreds of thousands in future medical costs, the platform evaluates each line item against the documented treatment record, published clinical guidelines, and Medicare fee schedules. Is the projected surgery supported by the treatment history? Are therapy frequencies consistent with the documented condition? Are cost assumptions based on reasonable rates or inflated projections? The platform identifies where the life care plan departs from what the medical record actually supports.
Trust and handling standards
HIPAA-ready handling
Designed for workflows involving protected health information, with security and access controls aligned to HIPAA-sensitive environments.
Confidential legal workflows
Built for defense-side document review, chronology building, and rebuttal support in confidential claim and litigation matters.
Evidence-linked outputs
Findings are structured around source records and citations so attorneys can quickly trace conclusions back to the underlying file.
Attorney-controlled review
ChartRecon supports defense evaluation and negotiation prep while keeping legal judgment and final decision-making with the attorney or claims professional.
How it works
A workflow built around how defense teams evaluate injury claims.
Provide the plaintiff demand package, medical records, and billing documentation. The platform accepts PDF, scanned images, and handwritten records.
The platform reads every page — every progress note, exam finding, imaging report, and billing record. It cross-references findings across providers and compares treatment against published clinical guidelines.
It identifies every inconsistency, guideline deviation, documentation pattern, and cross-provider contradiction. Each finding is linked to specific page citations.
You receive a structured defense intelligence brief with clinical findings, billing anomaly flags, and suggested lines of examination for depositions.
The defense cost problem
The gap between plaintiff AI and defense workflow is growing.
Plaintiff firms generate AI-powered demand packages in minutes. The defense spends 10–20 hours responding. AI tools produce polished, inflated demand packages at scale. Defense teams still review records manually, page by page, hoping nothing gets missed in 2,000 pages of documentation.
Expert costs are compounding. Medical experts charge $500–$1,000 per hour. A single case can require $5,000–$8,000 in expert fees before the defense attorney can form an informed case valuation. Life care plan rebuttal experts charge $3,500–$8,000 per report and are typically booked 4–8 weeks out. On catastrophic cases, the defense often can't get a rebuttal expert in time to meet discovery deadlines. Multiply all of this across your caseload.
ChartRecon closes the gap. The platform reduces medical record review from days to minutes and catches clinical inconsistencies that human reviewers miss under time pressure. Every finding comes with page citations. Every clinical conclusion links back to the documented record. Every defense argument is grounded in the plaintiff's own medical history.
FAQ
Common questions from defense teams
See what your records have been hiding.
ChartRecon is currently onboarding early design partners. Request early access to receive a sample defense intelligence brief on a representative case — and be among the first firms to use the platform when it launches.