What’s Buried in the Record

Rob Levine Law is one of the largest personal injury practices in New England: 400 team members across four states, handling personal injury regionally and Social Security and Veterans Disability claims nationwide. In twenty-five years the firm has recovered more than $2 billion for over 50,000 clients.

The firm's pre-litigation practice is built on a sequence of ten checks that happen before anyone writes a demand. The sequence isn't secret. Most of it is known to any experienced personal injury attorney. What's unusual is that Rob Levine Law runs all ten on every file — including the ordinary ones.

That last part used to be impossible until the FasterOutcomes Legal AI platform was introduced to the firm.

A senior attorney can work all ten steps by hand on the $8 million case. That file justifies the hours on its own, and it gets them.

The problem is the hundreds of bread-and-butter files sitting behind it. A single matter can carry 5,000 or more pages of aggregated medical records. Reading that properly, on every file, at the pace files come in, is a wall. So, the checks get skipped on what may appear as the typical soft tissue injury case, not out of carelessness, but out of arithmetic.

The soft tissue injury case is where twenty percent of the more serious cases are hiding, the detailed review and medical management builds the value in those cases.

Rob handed FasterOutcomes to his head of pre-litigation and her team — in his words, cynical about AI. That was deliberate. They are the group with the most to lose from a confident wrong summary, which makes them the only group whose verdict means anything.

For eight months, almost nothing happened. One to four people touched the platform in any given month.

Then it moved from three users in February, 2026 to the entire pre-litigation team in March. Over the same window, matters went from 28 a month to 183, pages processed from 8,299 to 81,719, and working sessions from 36 to 482.

Nobody mandated it. The skeptics tested it against files where they already knew the answer, decided it held, and taught everyone else.

“I gave FasterOutcomes to my head of pre-litigation — who was also cynical about AI. Once they started using FasterOutcomes, they became the biggest advocates of AI and ended up explaining to the rest of the team how to use it.”

Rob Levine · Founder, Rob Levine Law

The eight quiet months are part of the story, not an embarrassment in it. A pre-litigation team that adopts a tool in week one is a team that wasn't reading carefully. This one was.

The following are real findings from the firm's own files. None of them is a projection or a modeled estimate. Each is an objective fact that existed in the record, that a person would have had to find by reading, and that changed how the case was handled.

A pre-existing condition the client didn't know he had

On a 500-page file, the platform surfaced a note recording bilateral tingling in both hands — dated months before the accident. The client had reported no prior hand problems. A nerve conduction study later confirmed pre-existing carpal tunnel syndrome.

Without that note, the attorney would have gone forward unable to separate the client's acute post-accident symptoms from a condition he already had. Defense counsel would have found it eventually. Finding it first is the difference between building the case around it and being ambushed by it.

A contradiction across 3,000 pages

In a file running roughly 3,000 pages, the platform flagged an inconsistency in the record itself: some documents recorded no loss of consciousness at the fall, others described the client blacking out.

That contradiction is the argument. It doesn't resolve itself, and it's invisible unless someone holds two documents written months apart side by side. It supported a loss-of-consciousness argument the firm would otherwise have had no basis to make.

Treatment with no paper trail

In the same file, the platform found a date of service buried inside a phone-call note — a treatment for which no corresponding bill or record appeared anywhere in the main medical file.

Records that don't exist in the file don't get argued, don't get rated, and don't get paid for.

A ten-day discrepancy in the date of injury

An initial record put the date of injury at 8/6/25. A later treatment note put it at 8/16/25.

Ten days is small enough to survive every casual read of a file and large enough for an adjuster to build a causation argument on.

The finding that argued against the case

One result is worth stating plainly, because it cuts the other way.

On another file, the platform surfaced documentation indicating that a fracture the attorney had intended to relate to the accident was more likely attributable to a birth defect. That finding didn’t increase the value of the claim. It changed how the claim was handled, and it prevented the firm from building an argument that would have collapsed the first time defense counsel looked at it closely.

A tool that only ever finds reasons a case is worth more is not reading the file. It's telling you what you want to hear. The value of an accurate first pass is that it works in both directions.

The honest account of adoption at Rob Levine Law is more specific than “the firm uses AI.”

It comes in after intake, not at it. Most attorneys open a file in FasterOutcomes once the case has reached the treatment and demand-preparation stages. One attorney pulls it in earlier on higher-value or complex matters. Intake is still three questions asked by a human being.

The strongest use is structure, not prose. The team gets the most value from generated timelines, case facts, and argument points drawn from the uploaded documents — the raw material an attorney reasons from. The demand letter itself is still the firm's own work product, built on the template Rob's team refined over years.

It cleans record sets. Aggregated medical records arrive padded with fax cover pages and duplicated EHR output — 100 pages of actual records can arrive spread across 1,200 pages. Consolidating that is a meaningful share of what the platform does on a typical file.

A person still reviews the output. The first pass is sometimes over-inclusive, sometimes under-inclusive, and the team checks it either way. That is the correct workflow, not a shortcoming of it. The platform's job is to make sure nothing is missed on the way to the attorney's judgment; the attorney's job is unchanged.

Time saved scales with file size. On a typical file, review time drops by roughly an hour. On large record sets, it falls by about half the time. On the largest files — 5,000 pages and up — the team estimates two to four hours.

Rob’s ten-check process is described below as his firm’s practice, with FasterOutcomes supporting record review. Attorneys verify legal conclusions and qualified clinicians determine diagnosis and treatment.

1. Intake asks three questions

Rob describes a human intake process focused on fault, injury, and intention to seek treatment. The intake team builds trust and signs clients; attorneys evaluate the case.

2. Build the liability record

The firm examines duty, breach, causation, and damages. FasterOutcomes helps organize facts and legal material for the attorney’s review.

3. Identify missing evidence on premises cases

The team looks for measurements and potentially applicable codes. FasterOutcomes helps identify investigation questions; the attorney verifies the evidence and applicable law.

4. Look for additional sources of recovery

Rob describes considering other potentially responsible parties and available policies. FasterOutcomes can help surface questions and cited material for counsel to investigate.

5. Test the adjuster’s liability position

In one reported file, the team challenged an 80% liability position and obtained 100%. Rob describes using FasterOutcomes to examine reconstruction facts from a different perspective.

6. Follow up on possible brain-injury symptoms

The firm describes screening and follow-up as part of its file-development process. FasterOutcomes helps organize reported symptoms and questions; qualified clinicians assess injuries and determine care.

7. Review treatment questions with clinicians

The team looks for gaps in treatment and questions that warrant clinical review. The platform supports record organization; imaging and treatment decisions belong to qualified treating professionals.

8. Track the course of treatment

The firm reviews symptoms, records, and client conversations to identify follow-up questions. Attorneys use the organized record to develop the case while clinicians remain responsible for care.

9. Learn from the firm’s adjuster history

The firm tracks its expected values alongside adjuster positions. KNOWledge can make the firm’s own work history searchable, giving attorneys relevant institutional knowledge to review before negotiations.

10. Prepare the demand from the reviewed record

The team brings the relevant medical history, client information, dates, and legal arguments together. FasterOutcomes helps cross-reference the material; the attorney verifies it and prepares the firm’s demand.

Rob reports a 50% increase in recovery on cases his team can improve. That is his reported experience, not a forecast for every file or every firm.

By Rob's own estimate, 80% of PI cases cannot be improved. Soft tissue, no objective finding, client treats and is discharged. Nothing moves that case to create higher value.

Rob sees the opportunity in the other 20%: cases that initially look ordinary but contain details that may support further development. Finding those details requires careful review, and attorneys still check the platform’s findings.

Illustration, not an observed firm result: assume 60 cases a year, with 12 improvable files. A 50% uplift on those 12 files would increase total settlement value by 10% if starting values were equal. At an assumed $75,000 starting settlement per file, the additional settlement value would be $450,000. At $50,000–$150,000 per file, the range would be $300,000–$900,000. These are settlement amounts, not law-firm fees or net ROI.

Ten percent is a less exciting number than fifty. It is also the one that survives a skeptical managing partner.

That is the argument, and it is deliberately smaller than the headline. A vendor willing to shrink its own customer's number in public is the only kind worth believing on the numbers it doesn't shrink.

The ten steps were always the standard. They were written down, taught, and believed in long before any software was involved.

What changed is the arithmetic underneath them. The tingling in both hands months before the accident, the contradiction about the blackout, the treatment with no bill, the ten-day gap in the date of injury — all four of those facts were already sitting in files the firm had already been paid to acquire. Somebody just had to find them.

Now somebody runs Playbooks within the FasterOutcomes platform on every file, not just the ones there was time for.

FasterOutcomes builds pre-litigation playbooks for personal injury firms.

Read the short customer story · Explore Saxon for personal injury · Explore KNOWledge for your firm