WorkflowPersonal Injury & Mass Torts

Mass Tort Case Vetting

Mass tort case vetting that checks each claimant's records against the settlement's seven criteria, cites the page behind each verdict, and leaves tiers and rejects to people.

Watch it work Book a walkthrough

Walk the vetting, one screen per feature ↓

Watch with transcript →

The problem

Claimants who never qualified stay on the docket until the court asks

A plaintiff firm signs claimants against one product by the thousand, and each one has to show a pharmacy record of use, a qualifying diagnosis and the right gap between the two. Records analysts and nurses read fill histories and nephrology notes by hand, tick a spreadsheet of criteria, and chase missing records one provider at a time, often through an outside service.

The weak claims surface late: no fill record at all, another maker's generic, a diagnosis months after the first pill or a decade on. They sit on the inventory until a court orders prima facie proof from each plaintiff or the claims administrator turns them away, and by then the acquisition, records and filing costs are spent.

Built forMass tort directorsRecords analystsNurse reviewersDocket paralegals

The Problem Today

Firms sign claimants by the thousand, and few read every record before a court or a settlement asks for proof.

197,118: actions pending in multidistrict litigation, fiscal year 2025 published
4 in 10: signed mass tort cases fell out without pay by 2024 published

One claimant at a time today

Pharmacy
Charts
Criteria
Requests

Found when the order landsMissing proof surfaces once the court's clock starts
Reading that never billsHours of record review, unbilled on contingency

The Solution

Each record indexed by datePharmacy fills, medical charts and questionnaires read page by page
Seven criteria, each citedA pass, fail or missing links to the page that proves or breaks it
One request per pharmacyWhat is missing goes to its custodian once the paralegal approves
A person decides the tierA nurse confirms the injury; the director approves each tier and reject

Built-in controls

No reject without a person's written reason
No claimant record trains a model
Each finding, request and decision audited

What You Get

Firms file an inventory they can defend, with the weak claims found while a fix is still possible.

642 h: of review for 4,812 claimants, down from about 3,609 our estimate

Qualify, deficient or rejectEach claimant sorted, each verdict backed by a page
A proposed tier per claimantThe inventory rolled up by tier and by reason
A submission ready to signClaim forms with cited exhibits, in the program's format

From grid to signed wave

Mass tort case vetting, criterion by criterion and claimant by claimant

Laid out in the order a docket gets vetted: the settlement's grid first, the signed submission wave last, a screen for each step.

01Exhibit B, page 42
The settlement's criteria grid, read clause by clause into seven tests
How it works
- Each criterion keeps the exhibit's wording, its section and what counts as proof
- A click opens the exhibit page, here page 42 with the latency clause highlighted
- Version 3 widened latency to 1–10 years and moved 219 claimants to pass
- The director approves a new version before any claimant is re-checked against it
Mass tort directorKnows the inventory is measured against the settlement as signed, and sees what a new grid version would change before it changes anything.
02Claimants by criteria
A claimant-by-criteria matrix with a cited verdict in every cell
How it works
- One row per claimant, one column per criterion, each cell carrying its page
- Column heads count the whole inventory: 3,642 pass proof of use and 1,170 are missing it
- A tier tray holds Tier 1, Tier 2, deficient and proposed reject
- A row whose records just arrived waits at the top of the queue
Records analystStops keeping a criteria spreadsheet, and goes straight to the row whose pharmacy records have just come in.
03Row 214, read
New records read on arrival into cited criteria and a proposed tier
How it works
- Fourteen pharmacy pages read as soon as they arrive
- Proof of use, product and 810 days' supply cited to the fill history
- Injury, latency, statute and prior kidney disease filled in from the medical records
- Tier 1 is proposed, and becomes final only when the director approves it
Records analystFinds the one fill record that proves use without paging through the whole file, and can reopen the cited line.
04Source of a latency fail
Any cell opens on its clause and the record behind the verdict
How it works
- A cell opens the criterion's wording and the passage behind the verdict
- Row 215 runs 11.4 years from first fill to qualifying diagnosis, outside the window
- The disqualifier checker proposes the reject; only the director can approve it
- Each finding shows the checker's confidence, here 97%
Nurse reviewerGets the diagnosis date, the first fill and the clause side by side, and can confirm or question a latency finding in a minute.
05Records and sign-off
A records reader with the cited page and a sign-off for each role
How it works
- Documents on the left, the highlighted page in the middle, the criteria on the right
- Nephrology page 88 shows eGFR 24 and chronic kidney disease, stage 4
- The analyst confirms proof of use; the nurse confirms injury, latency and prior kidney disease
- The director can approve the tier only once the nurse has confirmed
Nurse reviewerSigns each medical finding against the exact page that supports it, and the medical judgment stays with the nurse.
06Missing proof requests
Missing proof of use batched into one request per pharmacy custodian
How it works
- 1,170 claimants lack proof of use, and 862 of them named a pharmacy
- 38 pharmacy requests in all, the largest covering 187 claimants
- Authorizations older than 12 months are flagged and renewed by e-signature first
- 308 claimants who named no pharmacy get a short follow-up questionnaire
Docket paralegalApproves a few dozen pharmacy requests in place of a letter per claimant, and no request goes out before that approval.
07Tiers and the docket
The inventory by tier, set against the court's proof deadline
How it works
- 3,110 of 4,812 claimants already hold prima facie proof
- One bar splits the inventory into Tier 1, Tier 2, deficient and reject
- A timeline runs from the order entered to the deadline, 90 days out
- Tier 1 breaks down into 1,206 at stage 4–5, 612 on dialysis and 88 transplants
Mass tort directorKnows who qualifies today, 90 days before the deadline, and where each of the rest stands, without a weekly spreadsheet roll-up.
08Proposed rejects
Proposed rejects that wait for the director's written reason
How it works
- 532 claimants fail latency: 401 diagnosed under a year after the first fill, 131 over ten years
- Each row shows the first fill, the latency and why it fails
- Nothing is rejected until the director picks a reason, and the count reads 0 of 532
Mass tort directorDecides each rejection on the dates and the clause, with a recorded reason, before any family is told no after years of waiting.
09Submission wave 1
Submission waves validated claim by claim before the director signs
How it works
- Six checks run before signing, from cited criteria to masked birth dates
- 1,906 claim forms, 13,342 cited criteria and 5,718 exhibit files
- One claim opens with each criterion tied to its page
- Agents assemble the package; the paralegal uploads it once signed
Mass tort directorSigns a submission wave knowing each claim form carries its cited proof, and that the claims administrator receives nothing unsigned.

Row 214 read against the grid: seven passes and a proposed Tier 1

A claimant whose pharmacy records have just arrived. Her intake questionnaire put her start about a year later than the pharmacy record does; the record is used.

Criterion	Result	The proof on file
Proof of use	Pass	Pharmacy fill history, page 3: the first fill of the product
Product	Pass	Page 3: the maker's own brand product code
Duration	Pass	Pages 3 to 9: 27 fills, 810 days' supply
Injury	Pass	Nephrology page 88: eGFR 24, stage 4; page 97: eGFR 22, 93 days later
Latency	Pass	6.1 years from first fill to diagnosis, inside the 1 to 10 window
Statute	Pass	Short-form complaint filed inside two years of the diagnosis
No prior kidney disease	Pass	Primary care page 12: eGFR 78 before the first fill

Around the matrix

More of the vetting: fill histories, buckets, roles and the audit trail

What the analyst, the paralegal and the director open beside the matrix.

Pharmacy fill history page 3 for row 214, first fill highlighted with its product code, seven criteria cited and the analyst's confirmation recorded — **The fill history behind proof of use**Page 3 of the pharmacy profile, first fill highlighted, with the product code that passes the product test.

Intake questionnaire page 2 with the claimant's own start date highlighted, beside a note that the pharmacy record date is the one used — **Memory against the record**The intake questionnaire puts her start about a year after the pharmacy record does. The record governs, and latency stays inside the window either way.

Claimant matrix filtered to the deficient bucket, proof of use, product and duration missing on each row and latency waiting on a first fill — **The deficient bucket, row by row**Filtered to deficient: proof of use, product and duration missing, latency waiting on a first fill, and the open request on each row.

Claimant inventory table with referring firm, bucket, injury, pharmacy, open item and the person holding it for each claimant in the block — **Who holds each open item**Each claimant's bucket, injury, pharmacy and open item, and the person holding it.

Audit trail filtered to agents: the criteria check of every row, records received, rejects proposed for latency and pharmacy requests drafted — **What the agents did, and why**Agent entries only: the check of rows 1–4,812 against grid version 3, the 532 proposed rejects and the 38 drafted requests, each with its reason.

Roles settings for the records analyst, nurse reviewer, docket paralegal, mass tort director and firm operations, with the powers and bounds of each — **Who may do what**Five roles and their bounds. The director approves tiers yet may not confirm a medical finding; the paralegal may not change one.

Where the weak claims hide in a signed inventory

What the agents raise across the docket, each with its page, for a person to decide.

Diagnosed too soon or too late

401 claimants were diagnosed less than a year after the first fill and 131 more than ten years after it. Each is proposed as a reject with its dates, for the director to decide.

A single kidney test

172 deficient claimants have one eGFR result where the grid asks for two, 90 or more days apart. 19 provider requests go out beside the pharmacy ones.

A start date the record corrects

Row 214's questionnaire remembered a start about a year late. The pharmacy record is used, and the 6.1 years of latency stays inside the window.

A grid version that moved claimants

Version 3 widened latency from 1–8 to 1–10 years and admitted the authorized generic. 219 and 86 claimants moved to pass, with the change shown before any re-check.

The checks belong to agents; every rejection belongs to the director

Agents read, cite and draft. People confirm and decide.

Records reader

Reads fill histories, medical records and intake questionnaires, scanned or digital, and files each page under its provider and its date.

Never edits a value
Never treats a claimant's memory as proof

Criteria checker

Checks each claimant against each criterion in the grid and cites the page that proves or breaks it.

Never passes a criterion without a page

Disqualifier checker

Flags the wrong maker, too short a course, latency outside the window, the statute and prior kidney disease.

Never rejects: it proposes, with the page

Records request agent

Groups what is missing by custodian and drafts one request per pharmacy or provider, with date ranges and authorizations.

Never sends: the paralegal approves and sends
Never contacts a claimant

Tier estimator

Proposes a tier from the settlement's tier table and rolls the inventory up by tier and reason.

Never assigns a final tier

Submission builder

Assembles claim forms and cited exhibits in the claims administrator's format and validates them.

Never submits anything

Mass tort case vetting: proof of use, rejects and new grids

What is mass tort case vetting?

Mass tort case vetting checks each signed claimant's own records for proof of use, proof of injury and timing against the settlement's criteria. Here agents read the pharmacy and medical records, cite the page behind each criterion and propose a tier; a nurse and the mass tort director decide.

What counts as proof of use?

A pharmacy dispensing record or a filled prescription naming the product or its authorized generic, with the maker's product code. A claimant's own statement, an unfilled prescription or an uncoded generic does not count.

What happens to a claimant with no pharmacy record on file?

The claimant goes to the deficient bucket. One who named a pharmacy joins that custodian's single request; one who named none gets a short questionnaire. The paralegal approves both.

Who decides a rejection?

Only the mass tort director, with a written reason. The disqualifier checker proposes rejects with the page and the dates, the nurse confirms latency findings, and the reason is kept in the audit trail.

What happens when the settlement's criteria change?

The new exhibit is read into a draft grid, the director approves it, and the inventory is re-checked against it. The criteria screen shows what changed and how many claimants moved.

How are claimants' medical records protected?

Authorizations are checked before any request goes out, and birth dates and member IDs are masked in each export. Each read, finding and decision is logged.

Personal Injury & Mass Torts

Find the claims that fail the grid
before the court asks for proof.

Start from a docket your firm has already signed and its settlement grid: we will run the matrix, the records requests and the tiers on it with you.

Book a walkthrough Browse solutions

Mass Tort Case Vetting

Claimants who never qualified stay on the docket until the court asks

The Problem Today

The Solution

What You Get

Mass tort case vetting, criterion by criterion and claimant by claimant

The settlement's criteria grid, read clause by clause into seven tests

A claimant-by-criteria matrix with a cited verdict in every cell

New records read on arrival into cited criteria and a proposed tier

Any cell opens on its clause and the record behind the verdict

A records reader with the cited page and a sign-off for each role

Missing proof of use batched into one request per pharmacy custodian

The inventory by tier, set against the court's proof deadline

Proposed rejects that wait for the director's written reason

Submission waves validated claim by claim before the director signs