Method
Documented, reproducible, physician-led
The review follows a structured methodology so that each concern can be traced to the specific opinion language and the medical basis that produced it. Every finding is either a concrete structural concern or an item flagged for human judgment — never a verdict.
How a review proceeds
1 · Isolate the claims
The opinion is separated into its load-bearing causal claims — the statements that actually carry the conclusion from evidence to this individual.
2 · Test the inference
Each claim is examined for the group-to-individual leap and for whether a legitimate bridge is present in the expert's stated basis.
3 · Document the concern
Concerns are recorded with the claim quoted verbatim, a plain-language explanation, suggested inquiry, and a note of where a legal standard is implicated.
Structural concern vs. matter for judgment
The methodology distinguishes two kinds of observation, and it never blurs them:
- Structural concern. A specific, sourced problem in the reasoning — for example, a population statistic asserted as individual causation with no bridge in the stated basis.
- Matter for human judgment. Where a bridge (such as a differential etiology or a mechanistic analysis) is present, the review surfaces it for the physician's and counsel's assessment. Whether that bridge is adequate is a judgment, not something the method decides on its own.
Supporting tooling
The reviewer uses an internal, documented, version-controlled methodology and supporting tooling to organize and cross-check the analysis. This tooling is an aid to the reviewer's professional judgment, not a substitute for it. It does not render legal conclusions, does not apply legal standards, and does not make causation determinations; every conclusion is the physician's.
No protected health information, medical records, or case documents are stored within that tooling or its repository. Case materials are handled separately, through the secure channel counsel designates. The methodology and its version state can be described to counsel on request.
What the review is not
- Not a legal conclusion. The review does not decide admissibility, causation as a legal matter, or the outcome of any motion.
- Not an application of a legal standard. Where a standard is implicated, the standard itself is supplied and applied by counsel.
- Not an automated verdict. Each item is a concrete scientific concern or a matter flagged for human judgment.