Home›Solutions›Workers' Compensation›EEOICPA Claim Review
EEOICPA CLAIM RECORD REVIEW

Five thousand pages of employment and exposure history, in order.

EEOICPA claim record review reconciles site, job title, era and covered illness against the Site Exposure Matrices, then pulls the AMA Guides 5th findings a Part E impairment rating is built on. Files run 1,500 to 5,000 pages across several productions; every line we return cites the page it came from.

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

The model is statutory. So is the hearing that tests 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 EEOICPA Parts B and E, both are written into regulation, down to the statistical model that decides compensability.

The rulebook and the referee
The rulebook
  • 20 CFR Part 30 — the claims regulation governing Parts B and E
  • 42 CFR Part 82 — dose reconstruction
  • 42 CFR Part 81 — the IREP probability of causation model: 50% or greater PoC is compensable, a literal statistical model
  • AMA Guides 5th for Part E impairment, paid at $2,500 per 1% whole-person
The referee
  • The District Office, which issues the Recommended Decision
  • The Final Adjudication Branch hearing, which produces written findings on each contested fact and explicitly reviews dose reconstruction adequacy
  • Federal district court, once the Final Decision is on the record
Representative fees are capped at 2% of the initial award — manual review of a 2,500-page file does not close Flat 10¢/page here, duplicates free
File anatomy · Case #IME-4812 cited 100%
Packet342 pp / 2 packets · 11 deduplicatedlogged
Employment historySite, job title and era, page-citedcited
Shift logs, dosimetry cardsHandwritten, microfilm-era originalsdegraded
Part E impairment findingsAMA Guides 5th data points, quotedextracted
Read in full · cited 100% · no eligibility calls
What the file actually looks like

Fifteen hundred pages is the light day.

An EEOICPA file runs 1,500 to 5,000 pages, roughly 3,250 in the middle, and it never arrives as one production. Department of Energy employment verification, the DOL case file, dosimetry and incident records, and decades of treating-physician notes land separately, overlap each other, and contradict each other on dates.

What makes the read hard is not length alone. Microfilm-era scans, handwritten shift logs and dosimetry cards, and the same production sent twice under a different cover letter are the normal condition of these files, not the exception.

The volume behind that: DOL logged 9,504 new EEOICPA claims in FY2024, 3,881 under Part B and 5,623 under Part E, served 21,926 claimants, and paid $2.716 billion that year.

Two neighbouring federal reads work the same way: black lung claim review and impairment rating record review.

What we'd build with you

Scoped on your file, not on a demo.

We do not ship a generic EEOICPA output and hope it fits. You send one real claim file, we read it, and the two of us decide together what the deliverable has to contain before anything is built. The platform organizes, cites, and surfaces; your specialist, your representative, and your rating physician decide.

In the demo case, page 140 turned out to belong to a different claimant. The read flags it and quarantines it on its own line instead of folding it silently into the rest of the record.

The co-build, in four steps no obligation
01

Send one real file

One production, exactly as it arrived. Nothing reformatted for us, nothing cleaned up first.

02

We return the read

Employment and exposure chronology, the covered illness and its diagnosis date, and the AMA Guides 5th findings a Part E rating is built on, each cited to its page.

03

We scope the build

You tell us where the read was wrong, thin, or in the wrong order. That becomes the fields, the sequence, and the export format of the finished output.

04

You run it

Your team sends files and works the output. We never rate impairment, sign an opinion, or decide whether a claim is compensable.

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

Four capabilities behind every EEOICPA read.

The EEOICPA record review is one deliverable of the same platform that reads, sorts, and cites the whole file.

FAQ

EEOICPA claim record review, answered.

No. Probability of causation is computed by the IREP model under 42 CFR Part 81 from a dose reconstruction, and the decision that follows belongs to the District Office and the Final Adjudication Branch. What we return is the input record in order: employment periods, site and job title by era, the covered illness and its diagnosis date, each cited to the page it came from.

We assemble and page-cite what a rebuttal argues from: the employment record as it actually reads, the incident and monitoring entries in the file, and the places where a production is missing. The Final Adjudication Branch explicitly reviews dose reconstruction adequacy under 42 CFR Part 82, so the argument stays your representative's to make. We organize and cite the record it rests on.

No. A physician rates impairment. Part E pays $2,500 per 1% whole-person impairment under the AMA Guides 5th, and the rating itself is a signed medical opinion. We pull the findings a rating is built on out of the file and cite them, so the rating physician reads findings instead of hunting for them across several thousand pages.

We reconcile what the file says about site, building, job title and era against the Site Exposure Matrices, and we show the match beside the page it rests on. Whether that establishes a covered illness under 20 CFR Part 30, or supports a Special Exposure Cohort petition, is a determination for the District Office and not for us.

No. Medrecords AI does not retrieve records from providers, facilities, or the Department of Energy. You bring the productions you already have, in whatever condition they arrived in, and the read 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.