# California QME Record Review Services > AI record review for California QME and AME evaluations — an itemised, page-cited document list built for the §4062.3 declaration, at a flat 10¢ a page. Canonical page: https://medrecords.ai/solutions/california-qme-record-review/ --- [Home](https://medrecords.ai/) ›[Solutions](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/) ›California QME Record Review CALIFORNIA QME RECORD REVIEW SERVICES ## Every page reviewed, every document declarable — before you write the ML201. California QME record review services turn a medical-legal file into an itemised, page-cited document list before you write the ML201. California pays the evaluator $3.00 a page past page 200; Medrecords AI reads the same file at a flat 10¢ a page, duplicates free, in the shape your §4062.3 declaration has to carry. [Test a file ](https://medrecords.ai/test-a-file/?src=california-qme-record-review) [Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/) Click any row → the source page it cites Document list · Case #IME-4812 declarable Adams, Timothy · medical-legal file 342 pp / 2 packets received logged 11 duplicate pages removed free p.140 — wrong patient quarantined Pages 342 Documents 27 Cited 100% ### The rulebook is published. So is the referee. We do not build for a case type until we can name the standard that defines a correct output and the person who grades the file against it. In California med-legal work, both are already in statute. The rulebook and the referee The rulebook - 8 CCR §§9793–9795 — Medical-Legal Fee Schedule, ML201/202/203 and the excess-page rate - Labor Code §4628 — the evaluator must state the time spent reviewing records - Labor Code §4062.3 — what may be served on the evaluator, and the declaration that follows - AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th edition — California is statutorily tied to the 5th, not the 6th The referee - The claims administrator, who can object and refuse payment for undocumented record review - Opposing counsel, on ML204 deposition at $455 an hour - A WCAB judge, who accepts or rejects the report as substantial medical evidence Billed to the claims administrator at $3.00/page past page 200 — CWCI reports a $1,817 average excess-page charge per comprehensive evaluation Flat 10¢/page here, duplicates free What a file costs to read Pages in the file — **806** **$1,817** billable at $3.00/pg **$81** our cost at $0.10/pg **22×** spread Excess-page review is billable past page 200 under the Medical-Legal Fee Schedule. CWCI reports an average excess-page charge of $1,817 per comprehensive evaluation, which implies roughly 606 excess pages. Figures are illustrative of the published rate, not a quote and not billing advice — confirm your own practice with your med-legal biller. How it works ### Three steps between the file and the declaration. 01 #### Send the file Provider productions and supplemental batches, as they actually arrive, in any format. In the demo case, 342 pages across 2 packets, with a wrong-patient page quarantined before the read starts. 02 #### We return the itemised list Every document broken out with page ranges, duplicates collapsed to one canonical copy at no cost, and findings extracted to the AMA Guides 5th edition. 03 #### You declare and file The export drops straight into the §4062.3 declaration. The review, the opinion, and the signature under penalty of perjury stay with the evaluator. The boundary, in writing ### A document list that knows it isn't the opinion. We itemise the file and cite every page. We do not review the medical evidence, form an opinion, or sign anything. The §4062.3 declaration, and the penalty of perjury behind it, belong to the evaluator. In the demo case, page 140 turned out to belong to a different patient. The list flags it and quarantines it in its own line, instead of folding it silently into page 342 of the record. Audit trail · Case #IME-4812 exportable 08:12Packet received · 342 pp / 2 packetssystem 08:3111 pages deduplicatedsystem 08:44p.140 flagged — wrong patientsystem 08:54Document list complete · 27 documents · cited 100%system 09:20List reviewed · citations verifiedreviewer 09:26List exported · §4062.3 declaration drafted off-platformreviewer Every access logged · file deleted 30 days after delivery Why Medrecords AI ### The rules the platform never breaks. EVERY LINE CITED CASE #IME-4812 · ADAMS, T.342 pp 2/14 — ER visit, right knee p.4 4/18 — arthroscopic surgery p.61 p.140 — wrong patient quarantined Medrecords AI Read every page · cite every line #### HIPAA, under a signed BAA Every file is handled under our Business Associate Agreement, from the first byte. #### Never trains a model Your records are never used to train any AI model — ours or anyone else's. #### Every line cited If we can't cite it, we don't say it. Every sentence links to its source page. #### Deleted after delivery Files are deleted 30 days after delivery, with a full audit log of every access. Powered by the platform ### Four capabilities behind every document list. The QME document list is one deliverable of the same platform that reads, sorts, and cites the whole record. [ #### Medical Records OCR Every provider production read in full — PDFs, scans, handwritten notes — nothing skipped, nothing guessed. IN ACTION · 342 pp / 2 packets → 27 documents, read in full ](https://medrecords.ai/product/ocr/) [ #### Medical Chronology The treatment timeline builds itself from the provider productions and supplemental batches, synced to every source page. IN ACTION · 2/14 ER visit → 4/18 surgery, one continuous timeline ](https://medrecords.ai/product/chronology/) [ #### Verifiable AI Citations If we can't cite it, we don't say it. Every document row links to the page range it was pulled from. IN ACTION · 27 documents → cited 100% ](https://medrecords.ai/product/citations/) [ #### Medical Summary Reports The itemised document list formats straight into the §4062.3 declaration — your template, your letterhead. IN ACTION · document list → declaration-ready export ](https://medrecords.ai/product/summaries/) FAQ ### QME record review, answered. Support it. We return the itemised, page-cited document list and the chronology. The review, the opinion, and the declaration under penalty of perjury stay with the evaluator. The fee schedule pays the evaluator for reviewing records, not for who scanned them. The evaluator still reviews the file; we remove the page-turning. Confirm your own billing practice with your med-legal biller — this is not billing advice. A statement of what was reviewed and the time spent, under penalty of perjury. Our output is an itemised document list with page ranges and source citations, formatted to drop into that declaration. Yes. The same file supports ML201 comprehensive, ML202 follow-up, and ML203 supplemental work, and a supplemental batch is compared against the file you already have rather than re-read from scratch. California is statutorily tied to the AMA Guides 5th edition. We extract findings to the 5th, not the 6th, and flag Almaraz/Guzman rebuttal material separately. ### Send one file. We'll tell you what we can read. No obligation. If the case type is buildable we'll scope it; if it isn't, we'll say so. [Test a file ](https://medrecords.ai/test-a-file/?src=california-qme-record-review) [Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/) [See every case type we process →](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/case-types/)