The impairment rating checklist, pre-filled and cited. BETA
Draft impairment-rating logic with cited record support and a jurisdiction-specific checklist, the final rating stays the examiner's own.
The jurisdiction checklist, pre-filled from the record.
Range-of-motion findings, diagnosis criteria, and other rating inputs the jurisdiction's protocol calls for are drawn from the exam and case record and dropped into the matching checklist field, each one cited.
Gaps in the record are flagged, not filled in.
When the record doesn't contain what a checklist field calls for, the field is left open and flagged rather than estimated, so the examiner knows exactly where an exam finding or clarification is still needed.
The final rating is drafted for review, not asserted.
Once inputs are cited and checked, the copilot drafts the rating logic that follows from them. The number stays in draft form until the examiner reviews it, adjusts anything they disagree with, and certifies it as their own.
The examiner certifies the number, always.
The Impairment Rating Copilot never asserts a final impairment percentage as its own. It drafts the rating logic and cites every input the jurisdiction's checklist requires, but the number is explicitly framed as drafted for the examiner's review.
Certification is a separate, deliberate step the examiner takes. Nothing in the workflow allows a draft rating to become final without that review, and the checklist keeps a record of what was drafted versus what the examiner changed.
From cited inputs to a certified rating.
Three steps, the examiner's sign-off is the last one.
The relevant checklist structure loads based on the jurisdiction and case type.
Inputs the checklist calls for are pulled from the record and cited, with gaps flagged instead of filled.
The examiner adjusts any input, reviews the draft rating logic, and certifies the final rating as their own.
Built for the people who sign the rating.
The checklist does the lookup; the examiner keeps the judgment.
Examiners spend less time hunting for checklist inputs across a long file.
For IME orgsA cited, checklist-driven rating is easier to review and defend downstream.
For carriersConsistent checklist structure across evaluators handling the same claim type.
For TPAsFrequently asked questions.
It drafts impairment-rating logic against a jurisdiction-specific checklist, with every input cited to the record. The final rating stays the examiner's own.
No. It never asserts a final impairment percentage as its own. It drafts the rating logic and cites the inputs; the examiner reviews, adjusts, and certifies the final number.
Yes, in beta. The Impairment Rating Copilot is live and testable now; we're refining it hands-on with early customers, and if your use case is a good fit we'll work with you directly.
That checklist field is left open and flagged rather than estimated, so the examiner knows exactly where an additional finding or clarification is needed.
The checklist structure adapts to the jurisdiction and case type selected for the exam; tell us which ones matter for your caseload and we'll work with you directly during the beta.
Related to Impairment Rating Copilot.
Drafts the examiner's IME report from exam findings and the case record, ready for the examiner's own review.
Read moreGroups conditions by body system with provisional High/Medium/Low review priority, reviewers confirm or override every tag.
Read moreGenerates a focused physical-exam checklist, targeted questions, and prior-treatment probes from the record before the exam starts.
Read moreLet the checklist do the lookup, keep the rating yours.
Join the beta and run the copilot on a rating of your own, or book a demo to see a checklist filled live. Handled under our BAA; never used to train a model.