Most AI tools are pattern-based. They respond to inputs like diagnosis, missed work, and body part affected, then generate a range based on what “similar cases” often look like.
The problem: Gilbert claims often hinge on details that don’t fit neatly into a calculator’s assumptions, such as:
- How quickly you reported symptoms after an on-site incident (important when your workday includes shift changes and multiple job locations).
- Whether your job restrictions were consistently documented after treatment began—especially for workers who try to “push through” and then later need formal limitations.
- How wage loss is supported when your earnings include shift differentials, overtime, or variable schedules.
- Whether the insurer disputes causation—a common issue when injuries develop over time during repetitive tasks or commuting-related work duties.
An AI estimate may sound confident, but it can’t review the evidence your adjuster will rely on.


