Specter makes the case reviewable.
You decide who reviews it.
Case review is expensive because skilled people spend their days finding and reconstructing evidence instead of making judgments. Specter turns the raw file into structured, source-linked, review-ready work, and then your paralegals approve it, or our review team does.
Review-ready work, not a summary.
The output is not a paragraph describing the file. It is a source-linked record a reviewer can act on.
Specter Case Review is a case file review system for mass tort and personal injury firms. It ingests medical records, bills, pleadings and the compiled PDFs nobody wants to open, splits and codes them to ICD-10, reconstructs the treatment chronology with gaps flagged, and scores each case against the firm’s own criteria, with every finding linked to the document, page and excerpt it came from. Final review stays with a person: either the firm’s own paralegals or Specter’s reviewers.
Six stages. Your team chooses the last mile.
Every case runs through the same evidence pipeline: extraction, normalisation, chronology, issue detection and source-level verification. Your team can review the output directly, or Specter can run the review for you.
Your paralegals stay in control.
Specter prepares the case for review: records organised, evidence extracted, chronology assembled, issues surfaced and every conclusion linked back to source. Your team reviews, edits and approves inside Specter.
We run the review for you.
The same Specter pipeline, with the final review handled by our review team against your firm's criteria before the work product is released.
Same evidence pipeline. Same review workspace. Same firm-defined criteria. The difference is who sits in the review seat.
- 01 / Ingest
Every record, one case workspace.
Medical records, bills, pleadings and supporting documents are ingested, classified, deduplicated and organised automatically, including compiled PDFs, faxes and scans.
- 02 / Extract
Evidence becomes structured data.
Diagnoses, procedures, providers, dates, medications, injuries, exposures and other litigation-specific facts are identified and normalised. Every extracted fact stays connected to the record it came from.
- 03 / Reconstruct
The case becomes a chronology.
Events scattered across hundreds or thousands of pages are normalised into one timeline, so a reviewer can understand the case without rebuilding it by hand.
- 04 / Analyze
Your review criteria become software.
Specter evaluates the record against your firm's actual litigation criteria: qualifying evidence, missing records, contradictions, causation signals, exposure requirements, statute issues and case-specific rules.
- 05 / Verify
Every conclusion leads back to source.
No finding exists as an unsupported summary. Each material conclusion exposes the underlying document, page, date and supporting evidence, so verification is a click rather than a search.
FindingEvidenceDocumentPage
Your reviewers. Or ours.
The case arrives at the same review workspace either way. Your paralegal can verify and approve it internally, or Specter's review team can complete the final review against your firm's criteria.
Don't read 2,000 pages to find ten that matter.
The evidence, the source and the decision arrive on one surface. Specter does the searching; the reviewer makes the judgment.
Causation support: meningioma following exposure
Firm criterionQualifying diagnosis ≥ 12 months after first injection“MRI of the brain demonstrates a 2.1 cm extra-axial mass along the left sphenoid wing, consistent with meningioma.”Radiology report · Austin Imaging · 12 Mar 2019 · p. 412 ¶3
Your review process, encoded.
Specter does not impose a definition of a good case. The system is configured around the review methodology your firm already runs, and applies it the same way on every file.
Start with software. Add capacity when you need it.
The workflow doesn't change when your staffing does. Both modes run the same pipeline, the same workspace and the same criteria. The difference is who sits in the review seat.
Your paralegals stay in control.
Specter prepares the case for review: records organised, evidence extracted, chronology assembled, issues surfaced and every conclusion linked back to source. Your team reviews, edits and approves inside Specter.
- Your team performs final review
- Your firm's existing reviewers
- Same Specter evidence pipeline
- Same review workspace
- Full reviewer controls
- Your internal approval process
We run the review for you.
The same Specter pipeline, with the final review handled by our review team against your firm's criteria before the work product is released.
- Specter performs final review
- Reviewed against your criteria
- Same Specter evidence pipeline
- Same source-linked verification
- Review capacity without new headcount
- Finished work product in your workflow
Every conclusion is inspectable.
The reason to trust the work is not that someone checked it. It is that you can follow any finding down to the evidence it rests on, and see who signed it off.
Every material finding leads directly to the evidence underneath it: document, page, date, excerpt.
Nothing important disappears inside a generated narrative. Findings stay discrete, listed and checkable.
Your criteria determine what gets surfaced and how a case is evaluated. Not ours.
Every edit, approval and reviewer decision is attributable to the person who made it.
Keep review inside the firm, or have Specter provide the review capacity. Same system either way.
One methodology, applied to every case.
The same review standard across a book of cases the firm could not have read manually.
Case review, answered.
What does Specter Case Review do?
Case Review turns a raw case file into a reviewed one. It ingests medical records, bills, pharmacy histories, pleadings and employment records, including compiled PDFs, faxes and scans, then classifies, deduplicates and organises them, codes findings to ICD-10, reconstructs the treatment chronology with gaps flagged, and scores the case against the firm's own criteria into a single GO, HOLD or NO-GO.
Every material finding is linked to the document, page, date and excerpt it came from, so a reviewer approves work they can check rather than a conclusion they have to trust.
Does Specter replace our paralegals?
No. It replaces the finding and reconstructing, not the judgment. Paralegals stop spending their days locating records, splitting compiled PDFs and rebuilding chronologies, and spend them approving or rejecting structured work. The review seat stays human either way.
Can Specter identify missing records?
Yes. Building the chronology is what exposes the gaps: a treatment period with no records behind it, a referenced provider whose file is absent, an authorisation that was never returned. Those gaps are flagged on the chronology rather than left for a reviewer to notice.
Do we have to use Specter's review team?
No. Software-only is a complete deployment, not a trial of the real thing. Your paralegals review and approve inside the same workspace, against the same criteria, with the same source-linked evidence our reviewers would use.
Managed review exists because some firms want additional review capacity without additional headcount. It is a staffing decision, not a product tier.
Can we start with software and add managed review later?
Yes, and it is a common path. Nothing about the pipeline, the workspace or your criteria changes: the review seat is a configuration, so firms move work between internal and Specter reviewers matter by matter, or during a surge.
Can I verify where a finding came from?
Every material finding exposes the document, page, date and excerpt it rests on. Verification is opening the citation, not searching the file. That is the property the whole system is built to preserve.
Whose criteria decide what gets surfaced?
Yours. Qualifying diagnoses, exposure requirements, causation rules, statute considerations, required documentation, exclusions, deficiency handling and escalation conditions are all configured to your firm's methodology, per litigation.
Who is accountable for a decision?
The reviewer who made it. Every edit, approval and rejection is attributed to a named person with a timestamp, whether that person works for your firm or for Specter, and the trail is exportable.
How do you handle badly scanned or compiled PDFs?
That is the normal case, not the edge case. Compiled records are OCR'd, split into individual documents, deduplicated and attributed to provider and date before extraction begins.
Is this HIPAA compliant?
Yes. HIPAA compliant with a BAA available, SOC 2 compliant, AES-256 at rest and TLS 1.3 in transit, role-based access controls, and full audit logging.
What formats do you deliver?
Structured data you can query directly, plus exports suited to plaintiff fact sheets and case management systems. Findings keep their source links through the export.
What volume can you handle?
Case volumes that would take teams months are processed in hours, from ten cases to ten thousand, and the criteria are applied identically across all of them.
Bring a real case file. We'll run it live.
Twenty minutes, your records and your criteria, plus a look at the workspace your reviewers would be using.
No commitment · 20 minutes