Medical records arrive as stacks of PDFs: typed notes, scanned forms, handwriting, billing pages and duplicates. Chronos uses AI to read that stack and draft a date-ordered chronology in which every entry points back to its source page. Your team then checks the draft, fixes what needs fixing and decides what goes into the case file.
The point is not to hand judgment to software. It is to spend reviewer time on checking facts rather than retyping them.
Add digital, scanned or faxed PDFs to a case. Chronos runs OCR where a page is an image, so handwritten and low-quality scans are read alongside typed records. What you upload is what gets reviewed; the draft cannot account for records the firm has not received.
Chronos identifies documented encounters and pulls out the date, provider, facility, diagnoses, procedures, medications and billed amounts. Entries are arranged in date order, and each one carries a citation to the source page it was drawn from.
Open any entry and the cited page sits next to it. Confidence signals point reviewers toward lines that deserve a closer look first, but they do not replace reading the source. Correct, add or remove entries until the timeline reflects the record.
When the review is done, export an editable chronology for a demand, deposition outline or case memo. Citations travel with the entries, so anyone reading the export can go back to the page.
Chronos summarizes what the records say. It does not diagnose, it does not decide whether an incident caused an injury, and it does not offer its own view on the standard of care. When a record is ambiguous or two providers disagree, the draft should show that conflict rather than resolve it. Clinical interpretation belongs with a nurse reviewer, treating provider or retained expert.
Review responsibilities stay with the firm. AI extraction can misread a date, attach a note to the wrong visit or miss a handwritten detail, which is why every entry is cited. A reviewer should open the source page for anything that matters to the case and treat unverified lines as unverified. The full list of review tools is on the features page.
In-house software tends to suit firms that already have paralegals or case managers reviewing records and want to keep that work inside the matter, update the chronology as later records arrive, and reuse it for different outputs. Firms without review capacity, or matters that need clinical analysis, may be better served by an outside provider. Our page on outsourced chronology services sets out the trade-offs.
If you are comparing several approaches side by side, the buyer's guide covers manual review, nurse services and AI software.
Before uploading protected health information, review the security and BAA details with whoever handles vendor approval at your firm.
Your first case is free. Review the draft before you rely on it.
Published 2026-10-19 · Content updated 2026-10-19