NewWe now read the actual MRI and CT imaging — not just the radiologist's 1-page report. See how →
HomeSolutionsNorth Carolina Rule 9(j)
NORTH CAROLINA CERTIFICATE OF MERIT RECORD REVIEW

Rule 9(j) is pleaded in the complaint. There is no cure after the fact.

North Carolina certificate of merit record review services prepare the page-cited record a reviewing expert reads before a complaint is pleaded under Rule 9(j). Every encounter and finding is indexed to its source page, so the certification that the records reasonably available were reviewed describes something that actually happened.

Click any row → the source page it cites
Record review · Case #IME-4812 documented
Adams, Timothy · reasonably available record set
342 pp / 2 packets received logged
11 duplicate pages removed free
p.140 — wrong patient quarantined
Pages 342 Documents 27 Cited 100%

The rule certifies a review. So the review has to be real.

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
  • N.C. R. Civ. P. 9(j), which requires the complaint to assert that the medical care and all medical records pertaining to the alleged negligence reasonably available to the plaintiff were reviewed
  • N.C. R. Civ. P. 9(j)(1), under which the reviewer must be a person reasonably expected to qualify as an expert witness and willing to testify that the care did not comply with the applicable standard of care
  • N.C. R. Civ. P. 9(j), whose final paragraph allows a 120-day extension of the statute of limitations to comply with the certification requirement
  • N.C. Gen. Stat. §1A-1, which contains the Rules of Civil Procedure
The referee
  • The trial court on a motion to dismiss, where a claim meeting the statutory definition of medical malpractice and lacking the certification is subject to dismissal
  • The North Carolina appellate courts, which have held there is no discretion to excuse a failure to certify, while allowing amendment where the review preceded the original complaint
  • The reviewing expert, who has to be willing to testify, not merely to have looked
Reviewer hours reading every record reasonably available before a word is pleaded Flat 10¢/page here, duplicates free
Record review · Case #IME-4812 cited 100%
Packet342 pp / 2 packets · 11 deduplicatedlogged
Encounter chronologyBuilt from the produced recordcited
Findings and imagingEach result at its source pagecited
Records referenced, not producedNamed in the chart, absent from the fileflagged
Review delivered · cited 100% · no standard-of-care opinion offered
How it works

3 steps between the records and the pleading.

01

Send the record set

Every record reasonably available to you — hospital charts, office notes, imaging and operative reports, nursing records — in any format.

02

We return the review, page-cited

The encounter chronology, findings and documented course of treatment, each line citing the page it came from, with referenced-but-absent records flagged.

03

Your expert reviews and counsel pleads

Whether the care complied with the applicable standard is the reviewing expert's opinion, and the Rule 9(j) certification is counsel's pleading.

The boundary, in writing

A record review, never a Rule 9(j) certification.

We index and cite what the record documents. We do not assess whether the care complied with the applicable standard of care, decide whether a reviewer would qualify as an expert, or make the certification Rule 9(j) requires. The certification is counsel's, resting on a reviewing expert's willingness to testify.

Rule 9(j) turns on the records reasonably available to the plaintiff, so what the file is missing matters as much as what it holds. Records referenced in the chart but never produced are flagged rather than passed over.

Audit trail · Case #IME-4812 exportable
08:12Packet received · 342 pp / 2 packetssystem
08:3111 pages deduplicatedsystem
08:44p.140 flagged — wrong patientsystem
08:54Record review complete · review complete · chronology cited · cited 100%system
09:20Record review reviewed · citations verifiedreviewer
09:26Record review exported · complaint pleaded and filed off-platformreviewer
Every access logged · file deleted 30 days after delivery
Why Medrecords AI

The rules the platform never breaks.

Medrecords AI 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.

FAQ

North Carolina Rule 9(j), answered.

No. The certification is pleaded in the complaint by counsel, and it rests on review by a person reasonably expected to qualify as an expert witness who is willing to testify that the care did not comply with the standard. We prepare the page-cited record review behind it.

North Carolina courts have held that a court has no discretion to excuse a failure to comply. Amendment has been allowed where the expert review and certification actually occurred before the original complaint was filed, which puts the weight on when the file was read.

The final paragraph of Rule 9(j) allows a 120-day extension of the statute of limitations to comply with the certification requirement. It buys reading time, which is precisely the constraint.

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.

That is a legal question for counsel on the facts of the case. What the review does is make the boundary visible: every record produced is indexed and cited, and every record the chart references but does not contain is flagged.

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.