How Justine scrutinizes the AME and PQME report.
In workers’ compensation, the AME or PQME report decides the matter — yet it arrives as dense narrative few have time to test against the underlying record. “Justine’s read” of the report extracts whole-person impairment by body part, work restrictions, causation, apportionment opinions, and the P&S date, and flags where the evaluator departs from the record. The attorney decides which flags become cross-examination, supplemental questions, or a re-eval demand.
What WC does.
- 01
Justine holds the full report — history, review of records, discussion, and conclusions — beside the treatment chronology, so a causation opinion can be tested against the records it claims to rest on.
- 02
Substantial-evidence review: Justine surfaces where an opinion rests on incorrect history, assumed facts, or speculation — the grounds on which a WCAB panel sets a report aside under Escobedo and Le Boeuf.
- 03
Apportionment opinions are isolated for review — the evaluator’s industrial vs. non-industrial percentages, and whether the report offers the substantial medical evidence explaining the “how and why” that Escobedo requires.
- 04
Every flag traces to the report page and the record excerpt that contradicts it; Justine proposes the challenge, and the attorney of record attests the work product before it is served.
- 05
Outputs are projections and drafting aids to verify, not medical or legal advice — the attorney decides.
The AI reasons; the attorney decides.
JustineAI™ WC is in market for applicant-side California workers’ comp. Rating, apportionment, and settlement figures are projections for the attorney to verify against the current schedule and CMS thresholds. Not legal advice · not a law firm · the attorney decides.