Start with the attorney’s next question
A new report rarely arrives in isolation. Its importance depends on the earlier opinion, the last client update, and the action already promised. Reading a summary still leaves work to do if the attorney must reopen several reports and email threads to recover that context.
Evaluate the whole task: from receiving the question to producing a verified response. A fast first draft is only one part of that interval.
Define the matter’s starting view
Ask your team what must be visible before they can act. For a workers’ comp matter, a useful evaluation brief could include:
- Dates of injury, body parts at issue, and the current accepted, denied, or pending status, with sources and dates.
- The last hearing, latest medical report, and any unresolved differences between physician opinions.
- The last meaningful client update, promised next steps, and who owns each open action.
- The latest reviewed status, clearly separated from new information awaiting attorney review.
This is a specification to test with the firm’s files, not a claim that every field is available in every deployment.
Make the change visible
Test whether the comparison distinguishes a new opinion from a repeated opinion, a correction, or a different physician’s view. An unexplained mismatch should stay an open question. A notification should help the attorney inspect the evidence, not imply that the legal conclusion is settled.
Keep correspondence in context
Demands and settlement discussions often span multiple threads. In your evaluation, include a revised demand, an attachment, a forwarded chain, and a later clarification. Check whether the proposed timeline preserves who said what, when, and which statement superseded an earlier one.
Confirm how messages enter the workflow, which mailbox permissions apply, and where the reviewed output returns. Count manual uploads and duplicate entry as part of the work.
Measure the return to useful work
Time the current process and the proposed workflow on comparable tasks. Include file preparation, locating evidence, verifying the answer, correcting it, and transferring the approved result. Record missed changes and unsupported statements alongside time.
The test is whether the team can reach a dependable answer with less total effort. Use the review checklist to define that standard before starting.