The chronology is the case, and it is built by hand
Dates, providers, diagnoses and gaps, assembled from records that arrive in no order and often twice. Ten to fifteen hours to index a thousand-page set before anybody has read it for meaning.
Practice Law firms · Personal injury
A paralegal week per case, spent reading paper.
Your fee is a share of the recovery, which means every hour spent assembling the record is an hour not spent raising it. The work of turning a thousand pages into an argument is the least strategic thing in the building and one of the most expensive.
40+ hrs to review a 1,000-page record set
10–15 hrs just to index one by hand
$1,000+ typical outsourced review, per case
3–6 weeks settlement delay firms report from it
Published figures and statutory rules, not measurements of your practice. We have not audited your files and these are a starting point for a conversation rather than a claim about your numbers.
Where the hours and the money go
You are already paying somebody else
Nearly half of firms outsource records review rather than fight it internally. A full review and summary commonly passes $1,000 a case and retrieval adds $40 to $75 a request. It scales with your caseload and it never becomes an asset.
The weakness surfaces on the wrong side
A treatment gap, a prior injury, an inconsistency between two providers. It is in the file. Nobody had time to find it, so the first person to say it out loud is opposing counsel, at the worst possible moment.
The signed case goes to whoever answered
Answering an inquiry inside sixty seconds is reported to lift conversion by 391 percent, and a five minute wait cuts the odds of qualifying it by 80 percent. In a practice where a signed case is worth five figures, that is the most expensive unanswered phone anywhere.
What we would build
Records into a sourced chronology
Read once, returned as a dated chronology with page citations, provider by provider. Gaps, priors and inconsistencies flagged rather than discovered. Built to your format, not a vendor template.
Demand packages from your own prior work
The first draft assembled from the chronology, the bills and your firm’s previous demands, in your voice, exhibits indexed. An attorney edits instead of starting.
Intake that answers immediately
Web, phone and referral inquiries qualified and routed in seconds, day or night, with conflicts flagged and the packet out before the caller looks anywhere else.
Lien and balance tracking
Health plans, letters of protection and provider balances tracked against the file, so the net to the client at settlement is not reconstructed from email the week it closes.
Medical chronology File 2841
Claimant Sample, J.
Providers 6 across 14 months
Pages ingested 1,184
First treatment 3 days post-loss
Treatment gap 11 weeks
Flagged Eleven weeks with no treatment between 14 Mar and 30 May, cited to page 612. Surfaced now rather than in a deposition.
Ready for review 9 min from upload
See it working
Run a chronology
Three sample record sets, each with something different buried in it, and one with nothing wrong at all. Pick one and watch it build.
Questions
How is this different from EvenUp or the other chronology products?
Often it is not better, and if one of them fits your practice you should buy it: cheaper than a build and available this afternoon. What they do not do is fit around how your firm already works, your case management system, your demand format, your intake rules. We are for the case where the gap between the tools you already own is the problem.
How accurate is it on real records?
You measure that during the Audit week, on a sample of your own files, before you buy anything. We report how often it is right, how often it is wrong, and what it does when it is unsure. Anything uncertain gets flagged for a human rather than smoothed over, because a tool that quietly guesses a treatment date is worse than no tool.