The economics only work at volume
A modest fee per file means the practice runs on throughput. Ten minutes of avoidable admin per file is not ten minutes, it is a headcount decision once you multiply it across the caseload.
Practice Law firms · Workers compensation
High volume, thin margins, and a calendar that does not forgive.
Comp does not pay like injury work. The fee per file is modest, the volume is not, and the deadlines are statutory rather than negotiable. That combination means the only durable advantage is cost per file.
Per file fees are modest and largely fixed
High volume, so small inefficiencies compound
Statutory deadlines, missed ones are not curable
Repetitive filings, which is what makes it automatable
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
Deadlines are statutory, not negotiable
Benefit disputes, designated doctor examinations, appeals. Miss one and there is frequently no remedy, so firms staff to the worst case and carry the cost of that all year.
The same forms, filled in by hand, forever
The information already exists in the file. Somebody retypes it into a form, checks it, and files it. It is the most automatable work in any legal practice and the least automated.
Medical evidence decides it and nobody has time
Impairment ratings, causation opinions and the records behind them are what the dispute turns on, and they are read under time pressure by whoever is free.
What we would build
A deadline engine that is not a calendar
Dates derived from the events in the file rather than typed in by hand, with the ones at risk surfaced before the week they fall due.
Filings assembled from what you already hold
Forms populated from the file, checked for the fields that get them rejected, ready for a signature instead of an afternoon.
Medical evidence read and summarized
Impairment ratings, causation language and treatment history pulled out with citations, so the person arguing it is reading a summary rather than the whole file.
Volume reporting that reflects reality
Where files are, which are at risk, and what the practice is actually earning per file, without anybody rebuilding a spreadsheet.
Deadline monitor DWC · 218 open files
Files at risk this week 3
Designated doctor exams 11 scheduled
Benefit disputes pending 24
Filings ready for signature 9
Derived from file events Not hand-entered
At risk Three files reach a statutory deadline inside six days. Dates derived from events in the file rather than typed into a calendar by somebody.
Queue current Recalculated hourly
Questions
Our fees are small. Does a custom build make sense?
Only if the volume carries it, and often it does not. The arithmetic is straightforward: multiply the minutes saved per file by your annual file count and compare it to the build. If that does not clear comfortably, buy something off the shelf and we will say so in the Leak Review rather than take the engagement.
Does this replace our case management system?
No. It sits on top of whatever you run and writes back to it. Replacing a working case management system is a large project, and large projects fail far more often than small ones.