AI tools typically work by asking you to input facts (injury type, treatment dates, symptoms, missed work). Then they generate a rough range based on patterns from other cases.
That’s helpful for organizing questions—but it can be misleading in Reading cases because insurance value often turns on details like:
- Whether Pennsylvania medical records show a consistent timeline (what was reported, when it was reported, and how symptoms evolved)
- Whether the injury is documented in a way that matches the claimed limitations (e.g., cognitive issues affecting work or daily functioning)
- Whether liability is contested (adjusters may argue the accident didn’t cause the TBI or that symptoms have another explanation)
- Whether you continued reasonable treatment or there were unexplained gaps
In other words: AI can suggest categories, but it can’t verify causation the way a legal team can when reviewing records, witness statements, and incident documentation.


