Home›Solutions›Mass Tort›Abuse Claim Matrix Review
ABUSE CLAIM MATRIX REVIEW

Tier first, then the scaling factors — evidenced from the record.

Abuse claim matrix review reads decades-old therapy notes, psychiatric admissions, employment files, and school records for the impact evidence a compensation matrix actually scores: tier, duration, and the aggravating and mitigating factors that scale it. Every line is cited to its source page, and the file is handled with the discretion the subject requires.

Click any row → the source page it cites
Intake log · Case #IME-4812 cited 100%
Demo file · claim production, de-identified
342 pp / 2 productions received logged
11 duplicate pages removed free
p.140 — wrong claimant quarantined
Pages 342 Documents 27 Cited 100%

The matrix is published. So is the person who applies it.

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 abuse compensation trusts and independent reconciliation programs, both are named in the governing documents.

That is the whole scope of this page: reading documents against a published matrix, so the people who decide can see the evidence and its source.

The rulebook and the referee
The rulebook
  • The Trust Distribution Procedures and their Claims Matrix
  • In the Boy Scouts TDP: six tiers by severity of the act, each carrying a base value and a maximum value
  • Aggravating factors that scale within the tier: duration and frequency, coercion, multiple perpetrators, and impact on the claimant — mental health, physical health, relationships, vocational capacity
  • Mitigating factors, which scale in the other direction
The referee
  • A named Claims Administrator. In the Boy Scouts trust, Randi Ilyse Roth, under Trustee Hon. Barbara J. Houser (Ret.)
  • The Independent Review Option, run by Hon. Michael J. Reagan (Ret.), designed to “replicate the amount a reasonable jury might award”
  • Reconsideration, available within 30 days for a $1,000 fee
Claim processing runs roughly $200–600 per claim, and neutrals bill $600–1,200 an hour Flat 10¢/page here, duplicates free
File profile · abuse claim production scoped range
Pages per file150–1,500 pp · median around 825read in full
ProductionsSeveral, arriving months apartmerged
ConditionDegraded scans, handwritten noteshard
DuplicationSame chart re-sent by several sourcesdeduplicated
Demo file: 342 pp / 2 productions · 11 duplicates removed · cited 100%
What the file actually looks like

Decades of documents, arriving in pieces.

A matrix-scored abuse claim file runs roughly 150 to 1,500 pages, with a median around 825. It rarely arrives at once. Counseling and therapy notes, psychiatric admissions, primary care history, employment and personnel files, and school records come in as separate productions, gathered over months from sources that no longer share a filing system.

What makes the read slow is not the length. It is the condition: photocopies of photocopies from the 1970s and 1980s, handwritten clinician notes, faxed intake forms, and the same chart re-sent by three different custodians so that a quarter of the stack is duplicate pages someone still has to open.

The volume is not hypothetical. The Boy Scouts trust alone holds 82,209 abuse claims. Across the Catholic dioceses and orders there have been 44 Chapter 11 filings, 15 of them still pending. Taken together, that is on the order of 10,000 to 30,000 matrix-scored abuse claims a year through about 2029.

What we'd build with you

One real file decides whether this is buildable.

We build a case-type read against a rulebook we can name, with the firm or the administrator who works it every day. That starts with one file, not a contract.

The output is an organized, page-cited read of what the record contains on each factor the matrix names. It is not a tier, not a score, and not a value. A reviewer takes the read and makes the call, with the source page one click away.

Files move under a signed BAA, access is logged, and the record is deleted 30 days after delivery. Redaction runs before anything leaves the workspace.

01

Send one real file

A single claim production, as you already hold it, in whatever format it arrived in. In the demo file, that is 342 pages across 2 productions, with a wrong-claimant page quarantined before the read starts.

02

We return the read

A chronology of the documented history and a factor-by-factor extract: where mental health, physical health, relationship, and vocational evidence appears, each cited to its source page. Duplicates removed, handwriting transcribed, nothing inferred.

03

We scope the build

You tell us where the read missed. We map the output to the matrix language your program actually uses, set the redaction rules, and agree the review workflow. If the case type is not buildable, we say so at this step.

04

You run it

Your reviewers work the inventory on your own template and letterhead. Tier assignment, scaling factors, and valuation stay entirely with the people your program names for that decision.

Why Medrecords AI

The rules the platform never breaks.

Medrecords AI EVERY LINE CITED
CASE #IME-4812 · DEMO FILE342 pp
Counseling intake, first documented p.4
Employment file, gap documented p.61
p.140 — wrong claimant 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

Four capabilities behind every matrix read.

The abuse claim matrix read is one deliverable of the same platform that reads, sorts, redacts, and cites the whole record.

Medical Records OCR

Every production read in full — photocopied 1970s and 1980s originals, faxes, and scans alike. Nothing skipped, nothing guessed.

IN ACTION · 342 pp / 2 productions → 27 documents, read in full

Handwritten Record Extraction

Handwritten counseling and clinician notes transcribed into searchable text, with the original page kept beside the transcription.

IN ACTION · handwriting → text, page reference preserved

Medical Chronology

Decades of treatment, admissions, and employment history assembled into one timeline, synced to every source page.

IN ACTION · several productions → one continuous timeline

PHI Redaction

Identifiers masked before a file leaves the workspace, so a claim can be reviewed without circulating more than the review needs.

IN ACTION · redaction pass → every access logged
FAQ

Abuse claim matrix review, answered.

No. We organize and cite the records behind a claim: the therapy notes, psychiatric admissions, employment history, and school records that document impact. Which tier a claim falls in, which scaling factors apply, and what the claim is worth are determinations for the named Claims Administrator and for the claimant's counsel. We never score a claim, assign a tier, or estimate a value.

In the Boy Scouts Trust Distribution Procedures, the claims matrix sets six tiers by severity of the act, each with a base and a maximum value. Aggravating factors then scale within that range: duration and frequency, coercion, multiple perpetrators, and impact on the claimant across mental health, physical health, relationships, and vocational capacity. Mitigating factors scale the other way. Each trust publishes its own version of that structure.

The impact factors are the part of the matrix that lives in the records rather than on the claim form. Someone has to find, across decades of documents, where mental health treatment, physical health consequences, relationship history, and vocational capacity are actually evidenced. We surface and page-cite those passages so the reviewer reads the evidence instead of hunting for it, and the scoring judgment stays with a person.

Independent reconciliation and compensation programs run on the documents a claimant can assemble: therapy and counseling notes, psychiatric admissions, primary care history, employment and personnel files, school records, and prior statements. Files we scope for this work run roughly 150 to 1,500 pages, commonly arrive in several separate productions, and often include degraded scans, handwriting, and duplicated sets.

Neither. Medrecords AI does not retrieve records from providers or facilities, and we are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting for any settlement trust, diocese, or claims administrator. You bring the records you already hold, and we return an organized, page-cited read of them under a signed BAA. Every determination stays with the people the program names.

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.