Sixth edition, fifth edition, fourth edition — or New York's own guidelines.
Impairment rating record review reads a workers' comp file against the rating standard that applies at the state line: AMA Guides 6th edition in roughly eighteen states and FECA, 5th in California, 4th in Texas, and New York's own Schedule Loss of Use tables. We read the file once and return what each guide asks for.
One injury. Four rulebooks.
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. Permanent impairment has both. It just has four of the first one, and which applies depends on where the injury happened.
That fragmentation is the reason the read is worth building. A single generic summary is wrong in three jurisdictions out of four; a read that knows which edition is in play is not.
300 to 1,200 pages. The rating turns on a few dozen.
A permanent impairment file runs 300 to 1,200 pages, about 750 in the middle, and it almost never arrives as one production. The treating chart comes from one system, the surgical records from another, the therapy notes from a third, and the carrier sends whatever it already had on file.
Some of it is a clean PDF export. Much of it is a fax of a scan, a handwritten therapy flowsheet with the goniometer readings in the margin, or the same operative report filed three times under three different cover sheets. The measurements the tables need are in there. Finding all of them is the work.
We estimate roughly 440,000 impairment rating reports a year across the US system, working down from about 4.5 million workers' comp claims to some 900,000 indemnity claims, of which around 35% reach maximum medical improvement with a rating, plus about 40% again in rebuttal IMEs. Every one of those is a file somebody reads end to end before a number can be defended.
A co-build, not a signup.
We do not ship one impairment rating template and hope it survives contact with Texas. The read gets built against a real file from your practice, in the jurisdiction you actually work in, and you see the output before anyone commits to anything.
The line we do not cross is the same one in every jurisdiction: the platform organizes, cites, and surfaces the record evidence. The evaluator forms the opinion, assigns the percentage, and signs the report.
Send one real file
One impairment rating file, from whatever state it came from, in whatever shape it arrived in. Three hundred pages or twelve hundred, degraded scans and handwriting included. In the demo case, 342 pages across 2 packets.
We return the read
The record read end to end and page-cited: range of motion entries, treatment course, documented restrictions, and the dates the edition in play turns on. No rating, no opinion, no signature.
We scope the build
If the read lands, we scope a repeatable version for your jurisdiction mix: 6th edition, 5th under §4660, 4th on the DWC-069, New York's SLU tables, or some combination of them.
You run it
Your evaluator reads the citations, applies the tables, and signs the report. The platform never assigns an impairment percentage, never rates a claim, and never decides what a rating is worth.
The rules the platform never breaks.
EVERY LINE CITED
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.
Four capabilities behind every rating read.
Impairment rating record review is one deliverable of the same platform that reads, sorts, and cites the whole record.
Pain & Range of Motion Analysis
Goniometer readings, pain scores, and functional measures pulled out of the therapy notes wherever they were written down, handwriting included.
Work Limitation Extraction
Every documented restriction, lifting limit, and duty modification lifted out of the chart with the date it was imposed and the page it sits on.
Condition Progression Tracking
The same measure plotted across every visit, so the plateau that supports maximum medical improvement is visible rather than argued from memory.
Custom Report Builder
One template per jurisdiction, so a DWC-069 file and a New York C-4.3 file come back in the shape each one is filed in.
Impairment rating record review, answered.
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.