How Justine will scrutinize 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. A med-legal scrutiny facet of Justine is designed to read the report inside the same 10M-token context as every chart, deposition, and prior eval, then flag where the evaluator’s history, causation logic, and impairment conclusions can be challenged or defended. The reasoning core will surface deviations from the MTUS and ACOEM guidelines, internal contradictions, and substantial-evidence gaps. The attorney decides which become cross-examination, supplemental questions, or a re-eval demand.

What WC is designed to do.

1. 01

   The scrutiny facet is designed to hold the full report — history, review of records, discussion, and conclusions — beside the entire treatment chronology, so a causation opinion can be tested against the records it claims to rest on.

2. 02

   It will flag treatment recommendations that depart from the MTUS or, where the MTUS is silent, the ACOEM guidelines, marking each deviation as a discovery target the attorney can develop or rebut.

3. 03

   Substantial-evidence review is the design intent: the facet is built to surface 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.

4. 04

   Cross-evaluator pattern reading is planned — how a given QME has opined on comparable mechanisms before, drawn from that evaluator’s own prior reports in the matter, surfaced so the attorney can frame impeachment.

5. 05

   Every flag will trace to the report page and the record excerpt that contradicts it; the facet proposes the challenge, the attorney of record attests the work product before it is served.

The AI reasons; the attorney decides.