# Florida Presuit Medical Expert Record Review > Page-cited record review for Florida §766.203 presuit investigations — the file read in full before the verified written medical expert opinion is served. Canonical page: https://medrecords.ai/solutions/florida-certificate-of-merit/ --- NewWe now read the actual MRI and CT imaging — not just the radiologist's 1-page report. [See how →](https://medrecords.ai/product/imaging/) [Home](https://medrecords.ai/) ›[Solutions](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/) › — Florida Presuit Investigation FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF MERIT RECORD REVIEW ## The corroborating opinion is verified. So the file behind it should be too. Florida certificate of merit record review services prepare the page-cited record a medical expert reads before giving the verified written opinion §766.203 requires. Every encounter, finding and imaging result is indexed to its source page, so the corroborating opinion served with the notice of intent rests on a file that has actually been read. [Test a file ](https://medrecords.ai/test-a-file/?src=florida-certificate-of-merit) [Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/) Click any row → the source page it cites Record review · Case #IME-4812 documented Adams, Timothy · presuit record set 342 pp / 2 packets received logged 11 duplicate pages removed free p.140 — wrong patient quarantined Pages 342 Documents 27 Cited 100% ### Presuit is an investigation. The statute says so in the section heading. 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 merit screening, both are written into the rule itself. The standard and the referee The rulebook - Fla. Stat. §766.203(2), which requires the claimant to investigate for reasonable grounds before issuing a notice of intent, and to corroborate them with a verified written medical expert opinion - Fla. Stat. §766.202(6), which defines who qualifies as a medical expert for that opinion - Fla. Stat. §766.106, the notice of intent to initiate litigation the corroborating opinion is served with - Fla. Stat. §766.203(3), which puts the same investigation duty on the prospective defendant before it responds The referee - The trial court, which may hold a hearing on whether the presuit investigation and corroborating opinion satisfy the statute - The prospective defendant and its insurer, which conduct their own §766.203(3) investigation on the same records - The medical expert whose verified written opinion has to corroborate reasonable grounds under §766.202(6) Expert hours reading the chart before the notice of intent can be served Flat 10¢/page here, duplicates free Record review · Case #IME-4812 cited 100% Packet — 342 pp / 2 packets · 11 deduplicated — logged Encounter chronology — Built from the produced record — cited Findings and imaging — Each result at its source page — cited Records referenced, not produced — Named in the chart, absent from the file — flagged Review delivered · cited 100% · no corroborating opinion offered How it works ### 3 steps between the records and the notice. 01 #### Send the record set Hospital charts, office notes, imaging and operative reports, nursing records and billing, in any format. 02 #### We return the review, page-cited The encounter chronology, findings, imaging and medication history, each line citing the page it came from, with referenced-but-absent records flagged. 03 #### Your medical expert gives the opinion The verified written medical expert opinion corroborating reasonable grounds is the §766.202(6) expert's document, and serving the §766.106 notice is counsel's decision. The boundary, in writing ### A record review, never a corroborating opinion. We index and cite what the record documents. We do not assess the standard of care, decide whether reasonable grounds exist, or produce the verified written medical expert opinion §766.203(2) calls for. That opinion belongs to a medical expert as §766.202(6) defines one. Both sides investigate the same records. Section 766.203(3) puts the same duty on the prospective defendant before it responds, so a gap or an inconsistency the claimant's review misses is one the carrier's reviewer finds anyway. Audit trail · Case #IME-4812 exportable 08:12 — Packet received · 342 pp / 2 packets — system 08:31 — 11 pages deduplicated — system 08:44 — p.140 flagged — wrong patient — system 08:54 — Record review complete · review complete · chronology cited · cited 100% — system 09:20 — Record review reviewed · citations verified — reviewer 09:26 — Record review exported · notice of intent served off-platform — reviewer 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 ### 4 capabilities behind every record review. The record review is one deliverable of the same platform that reads, sorts, and cites the whole record. [ #### Medical Records OCR Every page read in full — hospital charts, office notes, nursing flowsheets, handwritten records — nothing skipped, nothing guessed. IN ACTION · 342 pp / 2 packets → 27 documents, read in full ](https://medrecords.ai/product/ocr/) [ #### Medical Chronology The course of care builds itself into one timeline, so the sequence sits on a single axis before the notice goes out. IN ACTION · first presentation → injury → current treatment, one continuous timeline ](https://medrecords.ai/product/chronology/) [ #### Verifiable AI Citations If we can't cite it, we don't say it. Every line of the review links to the page range behind it. IN ACTION · review → cited 100% ](https://medrecords.ai/product/citations/) [ #### Medical Summary Reports The review formats straight into the expert's working file — your template, your letterhead. IN ACTION · record review → opinion-ready ](https://medrecords.ai/product/summaries/) FAQ ### Florida presuit investigations, answered. No. Section 766.203(2) requires that opinion from a medical expert as defined in §766.202(6), and it is theirs to verify and sign. We prepare the page-cited record review the expert reads before forming it. Section 766.203(2) requires it at the time the §766.106 notice of intent to initiate litigation is mailed. That timing is what makes the read a presuit bottleneck rather than a discovery-stage one. The same file, read the same way. Section 766.203(3) requires the prospective defendant or its insurer to conduct its own investigation before responding to the notice, on the same records and inside the same response window. No. Medrecords AI does not retrieve records from providers or facilities. You bring the records you already have — review starts in minutes from upload. Retrieval vendors take days; you can keep yours and still cut the review to minutes. No. Reasonable grounds is the conclusion the statute assigns to the expert and to counsel. The review carries the documented encounters, findings and sequence, each cited to a page, and stops there. ### 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=florida-certificate-of-merit) [Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/) [See every case type we process →](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/case-types/)