# Mass Tort Medical Record Review > Docket-scale record review and case screening: qualification criteria run across every claimant file, gaps flagged, bellwether candidates surfaced. Canonical page: https://medrecords.ai/solutions/mass-tort-case-review/ --- 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/) › — Mass Tort Case Review MASS TORT MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW ## Every claimant's records, reviewed against the same criteria — the docket sorts itself. Mass tort medical record review at docket scale: the same qualification criteria run across every claimant file, every line cited to its source page, record gaps flagged, bellwether candidates surfaced, and plaintiff fact sheets drafted from the same pass. The docket comes back sorted in days — case merit stays yours to judge. [Test a file ](https://medrecords.ai/test-a-file/?src=mass-tort-case-review) [Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/) Click any chip → the source page it cites Docket run · Case screening days, not months Claimant qualification screen · one criteria set, every file 1,240 claimant files queued queued 312 meet qualification criteria qualify 6 bellwether candidates flagged flagged Queued 1,240 Qualify 312 Bellwether 6 ### One docket, one standard of case screening. The usual answer to 1,000 claimant files is a room of contract reviewers working from a checklist, for months, with QA sampling a fraction of the output. Keep the record review with you instead: the same qualification criteria run across every file, every line cited, and the docket comes back sorted in days. The same deliverable, 2 ways Turnaround Months of contract reviewers Days, any docket size Pricing $0.20–$1.50 / page × thousands of files Flat 10¢ / page Citations Sampled QA Every line, every file Data control Records at a BPO Never leave your control Claimant screen · 1 of 1,240 your criteria Exposure history — Documented in pharmacy records — cited Diagnosis — Confirmed in pathology report — cited Latency window — Met per criteria set — cited Treatment records — Gap in coverage — records missing — gap Case merit — Not scored — yours to judge — counsel Same screen, every file · 312 of 1,240 qualify How it works ### 3 steps between intake and a sorted docket. 01 #### Upload the docket and your criteria The claimant files you already have, any format, plus the qualification criteria counsel has set for the litigation. In the demo docket, 1,240 claimant files queued in one batch. 02 #### The AI screens every file, every line cited The same criteria run uniformly across the whole docket. Each criterion result links to its source page, record gaps are flagged for follow-up, and plaintiff fact sheets draft from the same pass. 03 #### Counsel reviews the sorted docket 312 files meet criteria, 6 bellwether candidates surface, and every call is yours to confirm: verify any line with a click, then export the results and the fact sheets. Screening, not scoring ### It flags the signal. Counsel makes the call. The qualification criteria are yours, and case screening runs them the same way on file 1 and file 1,240. Every criterion result carries its source page, so when a file qualifies (or doesn't), you can open the exact record behind it. What it never does is rank case merit or estimate case value. It flags what the record shows: criteria met, gaps in coverage, bellwether-relevant facts. Which claimants proceed is a judgment the platform leaves with counsel, and the audit trail shows exactly who decided what. Audit trail · Docket run exportable Day 1 — Docket ingested · 1,240 claimant files — system Day 1 — Qualification criteria locked — counsel Day 2 — Record gaps flagged for follow-up — system Day 3 — Screen complete · 312 qualify · 6 bellwether — system Day 3 — Plaintiff fact sheets drafted · per claimant — system Day 4 — Qualification confirmed & exported — counsel Every access logged · files 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 screen. Mass tort case screening is one deliverable of the same platform that reads, sorts, and cites the whole record. [ #### Mass tort batch processing Queue the whole docket in one batch. Every claimant file gets the same read, the same criteria, and the same citation standard. IN ACTION · 1,240 claimant files queued → screened in days, one criteria set ](https://medrecords.ai/product/mass-tort-batch-processing/) [ #### Missing records identification Gaps in treatment or exposure coverage are flagged per claimant, before opposing counsel finds them in discovery. IN ACTION · 1,240 files screened → gaps flagged per claimant, cited to the record ](https://medrecords.ai/product/missing-records-identification/) [ #### Medical chronology A cited timeline per claimant: exposure, diagnosis, treatment, each entry synced to its source page in that file. IN ACTION · 312 qualifying files → a per-claimant chronology, every entry cited ](https://medrecords.ai/product/chronology/) [ #### Custom report builder Plaintiff fact sheets on the court's form, drafted per claimant from the same screening pass, every field cited. IN ACTION · same pass → plaintiff fact sheets drafted for the 312 who qualify ](https://medrecords.ai/product/custom-report-builder/) FAQ ### Mass tort record review and case screening, answered. 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. You do. Counsel sets the qualification criteria the litigation requires — exposure, diagnosis, latency, treatment history — and the platform runs that same set uniformly across every claimant file. Every criterion result is cited to its source page, so you can see exactly why a file qualified or didn't. Yes. Plaintiff fact sheets are drafted from the same screening pass, one per claimant, with every factual field cited to its source page in that claimant's record. Counsel reviews and finalizes each one before it goes out; nothing is served without your sign-off. No. The platform screens each file against your qualification criteria and flags the signal: criteria met, gaps in the record, bellwether-relevant facts. It never scores case merit or estimates case value. Qualification judgment stays with counsel. Flat 10¢ a page (duplicates free), whatever the docket size. No per-file minimums, no volume tiers, no contract-reviewer hours. A 1,240-file docket is priced the same way as a single file: by the page, with every line cited. ### Screen the docket in days, not quarters. AI screens. Counsel decides who qualifies. [Test a file ](https://medrecords.ai/test-a-file/?src=mass-tort-case-review) [Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/) [See all specialties →](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/medical-record-review/)