# Traumatic Brain Injury Record Review > TBI record review for litigation: acute findings, imaging, neuropsychological testing and symptom course, set against the published criteria and page-cited. Canonical page: https://medrecords.ai/solutions/traumatic-brain-injury-record-review/ --- New — **Missing Records Detection:** flags every visit, provider, and date missing from the file. [See how →](https://medrecords.ai/product/missing-records-identification/) [Home](https://medrecords.ai/) ›[Solutions](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/) › — TBI Record Review TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY RECORD REVIEW ## The mild TBI case is won or lost in the first 72 hours of the chart. Traumatic brain injury record review services assemble what the file documents against the published diagnostic criteria: level of consciousness, post-traumatic amnesia, acute imaging, symptom onset and the neuropsychological testing that followed, each element cited to its page. The clinician draws the diagnostic conclusion. [Test a file ](https://medrecords.ai/test-a-file/?src=traumatic-brain-injury-record-review) [Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/) Click any row → the source page it cites Record review · Case #IME-4812 documented Adams, Timothy · brain injury file 342 pp / 2 packets received logged 11 duplicate pages removed free p.140 — wrong patient quarantined Pages 342 Documents 27 Cited 100% ### The diagnostic criteria are published. So is the expert who will test them. 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 traumatic brain injury litigation, both are already published. The standard and the referee The rulebook - The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine 2023 diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury, which set out the clinical, imaging and symptom evidence a diagnosis rests on - The VA and Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline for the management of concussion and mild traumatic brain injury - The Glasgow Coma Scale and post-traumatic amnesia duration as recorded at the scene and on arrival, which drive the acute severity classification - Fed. R. Evid. 702 as amended in December 2023, under which a diagnosis offered in court has to be a reliable application of those criteria to this record The referee - The defense neuropsychologist, who reads the same chart looking for the elements the criteria require and the plaintiff’s record does not show - The trial court at a Rule 702 hearing on the diagnosis and on any claim of permanent cognitive deficit - The treating neurologist or physiatrist, whose own documentation is the first thing cross-examination reads back A diagnosis attacked on an acute finding nobody had located in the chart From 10¢ to as low as 5¢/page here, duplicates free Record review · Case #IME-4812 cited 100% Packet — 342 pp / 2 packets · 11 deduplicated — logged Acute findings — GCS, loss of consciousness and PTA, as charted — cited Imaging — CT and MRI report text carried with its date — cited Symptom onset gaps — Complaints first documented weeks later — flagged Review delivered · cited 100% · no diagnosis rendered How it works ### 3 steps between the chart and the expert. 01 #### Send the whole file EMS run sheets, emergency department records, imaging reports, primary care notes, therapy records and the neuropsychological battery, in any format. 02 #### We return the review, page-cited The acute picture, the imaging, the symptom course and the testing, each element placed against the published criteria and linked to its page. 03 #### The clinician makes the call They apply the criteria, form the diagnosis and defend it. The review is the record they and the opposing expert are both reading from. The boundary, in writing ### An organized record, not a neurological opinion. We locate, quote and cite what the chart documents. We do not diagnose a brain injury, grade its severity, interpret imaging, score or interpret neuropsychological testing, or opine on permanence. Those conclusions belong to the clinicians who examined the patient and will testify to them. In the demo case, 11 duplicate copies were removed before review. Duplicated triage sheets are the usual reason an acute finding gets read three times and a later negative finding gets missed once. 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 delivered · cited 100% — system 09:20 — Record review reviewed · citations verified — reviewer 09:26 — Record review exported · expert packet assembled by counsel — 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 ### 7 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, including the EMS run sheet and the handwritten triage note where the first GCS usually lives. IN ACTION · 342 pp / 2 packets, read in full ](https://medrecords.ai/product/ocr/) [ #### Medical Chronology The symptom course builds itself in date order, so first documentation of each complaint is visible rather than argued. IN ACTION · incident → current symptoms, one timeline ](https://medrecords.ai/product/chronology/) [ #### Verifiable AI Citations If we cannot cite it, we do not assert it. Every element links to its page. IN ACTION · review → cited 100% ](https://medrecords.ai/product/citations/) [ #### Medical Summary Reports It exports into the expert’s review packet in your template. IN ACTION · review → expert packet ](https://medrecords.ai/product/summaries/) [ #### Medical Record Deduplication Forty charts pulled from multiple practices and EHR migrations carry their share of duplicate visit notes. Each is matched and collapsed to one canonical record, so the prescribing pattern is read once per real encounter. IN ACTION · 40 charts → duplicate visit notes collapsed to 1 record each ](https://medrecords.ai/product/medical-record-deduplication/) [ #### Missing Records Identification A prescribing pattern read across 40 charts is only as sound as the file behind it. When a chart references a visit, refill, or referral that never made it into the production, the gap is flagged before the pattern goes to the board. IN ACTION · prescribing pattern cross-checked → gaps flagged before submission ](https://medrecords.ai/product/missing-records-identification/) [ #### Cross-Exam Simulator A board investigator or defense counsel builds a case from the chart abstraction. This tool maps the questioning a physician facing that hearing is likely to face on the gaps and pattern in their own record. A rehearsal tool, not legal advice. IN ACTION · prescribing pattern → likely hearing questions mapped ](https://medrecords.ai/product/cross-exam-simulator/) FAQ ### TBI record review, answered. No. We assemble and cite the evidence the published criteria call for: level of consciousness, post-traumatic amnesia, acute imaging, symptom onset and testing. Whether those facts meet the ACRM criteria is a clinical judgment for the examining or reviewing clinician. Because it is where mild TBI cases are attacked. A complaint first documented six weeks after the incident is a different evidentiary problem from one charted in the emergency department, and both sides will find it. Better that your expert finds it first, with the page attached. No. We carry the radiologist’s report text with its date and page, and we do not read images or restate findings in our own words. Imaging interpretation belongs to a radiologist, and any competing reading belongs to a retained expert. 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. ### 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=traumatic-brain-injury-record-review) [Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/) [See every case type we process →](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/case-types/) ### More solutions - [**400 narratives, one house style, and a submission date.** — Patient narratives for deaths, serious adverse events and discontinuations, drafted to the ICH E3 clinical…](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/csr-patient-narrative-drafting/) - [**45 days to a credible RCA. Most of it goes to assembly.** — Chart, policy and device-log assembly for root cause analysis and sentinel event review, page-cited and…](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/sentinel-event-rca-record-review/) - [**45 days, one indexed packet, 1 narrative that maps to the coverage criteria.** — ADR response support for TPE, UPIC, SMRC and RAC audits: indexed record packets, signatures and orders located…](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/medicare-audit-response/) - [**5,000 pages of employment and exposure history, in order.** — Record and employment-history review for EEOICPA Parts B and E claims. Exposure chronology, dose reconstruction…](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/eeoicpa-claim-review/) - [**60 days from the answer, and the specialty has to match.** — Page-cited record review for New Jersey affidavits of merit under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 — the file read in full…](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/new-jersey-certificate-of-merit/) - [**60 days to certify. However many pages the chart runs to.** — Page-cited record review for Pennsylvania Rule 1042.3 certificates of merit — the file read in full before a…](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/pennsylvania-certificate-of-merit/)