What a medical chronology actually looks like.
Most vendors selling records review will not show you the output until you are on a call with them. Here is a complete one, free, with nothing gated. Read it, hand it to a paralegal, decide whether the format is worth anything to your firm. Every name, date, provider and clinical detail below is fictional — the format, citation density and flag types are exactly what you receive on a live matter.
What a chronology is, and what makes one usable
A medical chronology is a dated summary of every treatment event in a record set, written so an attorney or adjuster can follow the course of care without reading the underlying pages. On a personal injury matter that pile is routinely several hundred to several thousand pages, and a paralegal bills days turning it into something workable. Legal nurse consultants charge $1,500 to $3,000 a case for the same reading.
The difference between a chronology that earns its cost and one that creates risk comes down to four things, all visible in the sample below:
A page citation on every line — not one per section or per encounter. Any statement can be checked against its source in seconds, in a deposition or at 11pm before a filing.
Treatment gaps called out explicitly, with dates, duration, the records that bracket the gap, and whatever explanation the record itself offers. You should not have to notice a 51-day gap by reading carefully.
Prior conditions identified with what the record does and does not establish, because apportionment usually turns on exactly that distinction.
Missing records flagged — sets referenced in the production but never produced. That is the targeted follow-up request nobody realized they needed.
What follows is the real deliverable, reformatted for the web. The PDF version is what actually lands in your inbox.
Medical chronology — Marisol A. Delacroix
Motor vehicle collision of 8 February 2025 · 1,247 pages reviewed across six providers · treatment period 8 February 2025 to 14 January 2026.
Summary
Claimant was the restrained driver of a vehicle struck from behind at a signalized intersection on 8 February 2025, transported by ground EMS with neck and low back pain p. 0006. Initial imaging was negative for acute fracture p. 0041, and she was discharged with a soft collar and instructions to follow up with primary care p. 0052.
Conservative care followed for roughly eleven weeks. Treatment then stopped for 51 days between 2 May and 22 June 2025 with no documented encounter at any provider (flag TG-01). Care resumed on referral to orthopedics, where lumbar MRI on 9 July 2025 demonstrated a disc herniation at L5–S1 contacting the descending S1 nerve root p. 0612. Two epidural steroid injections followed with partial, temporary relief. Surgical candidacy was evaluated on 14 January 2026 and microdiscectomy deferred pending further therapy p. 1189. Records also document a 2019 lumbar strain treated to resolution (flag PC-01) p. 0311. Two record sets referenced in the production have not been received (MR-01, MR-02).
Provider index
| Provider | Role | Dates of service | Enc. | Pages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suncoast County EMS | Prehospital | 08 Feb 2025 | 1 | 14 |
| Bayshore Regional Medical Center | Emergency | 08 Feb 2025 | 1 | 61 |
| Palmetto Family Medicine | Primary care | 14 Feb – 18 Dec 2025 | 7 | 218 |
| Gulfview Rehabilitation | Physical therapy | 24 Feb – 02 May 2025 | 11 | 296 |
| Tampa Bay Orthopedic Institute | Orthopedic surgery | 22 Jun 2025 – 14 Jan 2026 | 5 | 402 |
| Harbor Imaging Partners | Diagnostic imaging | 09 Jul – 03 Nov 2025 | 2 | 256 |
| Total | 340 days | 27 | 1,247 |
Chronology
No documented encounter with any produced provider between physical therapy discharge on 2 May p. 0288 and orthopedic consultation on 22 June p. 0431. The therapy discharge directed return to the referring physician; produced primary care records contain no visit in that interval p. 0104–0158. The 22 June intake records the claimant's own account as "tried to manage it on my own, could not afford the copays" p. 0433. Pharmacy records for this period have not been produced (MR-02) and may or may not evidence continued treatment.
Primary care intake history records a lumbar strain from a March 2019 workplace lifting incident, treated with six weeks of therapy and documented as resolved with return to full duty in May 2019 p. 0311–0318. No imaging from 2019 appears in the production and none is referenced in the 2019 notes. The treating orthopedist addresses and distinguishes the prior injury p. 0697. Pre-collision lumbar imaging, if any exists, would bear directly on apportionment — the 2025 plain films describe degenerative change as "age indeterminate" p. 0042.
The therapy plan of 24 February prescribes eighteen sessions p. 0177. The production contains eleven attended sessions and four documented no-shows, accounting for fifteen. Notes for the remaining three prescribed sessions are neither present nor addressed in the discharge summary p. 0286. A targeted follow-up request is recommended rather than a full re-production.
No pharmacy or prescription-fill records appear in any of the four productions, though prescriptions are documented at the emergency visit p. 0055 and at four subsequent primary care encounters. Fill records covering 2 May to 22 June 2025 would directly address the treatment gap at TG-01.
How this one was produced
Processing ran on hardware we own in Florida. No part of a client record set is transmitted to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or any other public AI service. There is no cloud model API in the document pipeline, and no fallback path that ships an over-long file to a commercial API when a local model struggles. Detail on the security page.
A person reviewed it before delivery. Model output is a draft. Citations are checked against source pages, flags confirmed, and a reviewer releases the file. The delivery footer records both the generation and the review timestamp so you can see the difference.
It is a drafting aid, not a substitute for review. We are not a law firm, we do not practice law or medicine, and we offer no legal or clinical opinion. The attorney or nurse consultant responsible for the matter is responsible for verifying it — which is exactly why every line is cited. See our terms, section 6.
What it costs
Compare that to the $1,500–$3,000 a legal nurse consultant charges for the same reading, or to three days of a paralegal's time. Turnaround is typically overnight; billing is on delivery, net 15.
Or call 813-733-5997. Need a BAA before anything is discussed? Request one — you'll have a document within one business day.