Medical-legal case intelligence reasoned, cited, and honest.

Built to serve, not to replace.

She does the reading. Your team still does the deciding.

RITA isn't here to replace the paralegals and legal nurse consultants who already know these cases cold. She's here to hand them a fully-cited first pass — record read, timeline built, findings sourced back to the page — so the person who signs their name to the work spends their time reviewing and judging, not scanning 1,400 pages of records to find the one line that matters.

Your file never touches a public cloud.

When a patient file comes in, it's processed entirely locally — no public cloud AI service ever sees it. That's how every case is handled today, and it's the foundation for where this is headed next.

Not a summary. A reasoned opinion.

Every RITA report is built on a simple rule: if it's not documented, she says so — instead of guessing.

Twelve report types, one platform.

Meet Jordan Avery (a synthetic case). From first merit screen to expert rebuttal, RITA covers the full lifecycle of a case.

Every sample above is a real RITA-generated report from a synthetic demo case — built to be shown, not staged.

Radical honesty, report by report.

Hover the dot on each page below. These are real excerpts from the sample packet — not cherry-picked wins. Some flag a problem, one confirms a clean record. That's the point.

This report failed its own QA check — and says so, right in the deliverable, instead of quietly shipping a shaky number.

She names the exact upstream objects — charge_ledger, billing_qa_gate — that made this report provisional, not just a vague "needs review."

Flag a problem, then hand you the one-click path back to source — not just a warning with nowhere to go.

Merit Screen — Fails Loudly, Not Quietly

When the underlying data is provisional, the report is marked "QA Fail — Provisional" instead of presenting it as settled fact.

View full report →

100/100 (high) — flagged right in the executive card, not buried in an appendix, so no one skims past it.

A 100/100 fraud-indicator score sounds damning — so RITA immediately clarifies what it does and doesn't mean, instead of letting the number speak for itself.

Every unsupported dollar traces to a named CPT code and the specific reason it's unsupported — not a lump-sum estimate.

Billing Analysis — Precise About What a Score Means

Every scored finding comes with the plain-language boundary of what it is and isn't proof of.

View full report →

No opposing expert report was loaded — so instead of inventing one, RITA flags the claim language as placeholder text until you load the real thing.

She's explicit that this is placeholder language standing in for a real opinion — not something quietly repackaged as if it were one.

Not just a warning — a direct link to the exact panel where you load the real expert report and regenerate.

Expert Rebuttal — Won't Fake What's Missing

She'll draft the scaffolding, but she tells you plainly when it's a placeholder, not a rebuttal.

View full report →

29 contradictions in the record, surfaced for attorney review — before anyone treats this chronology as settled fact.

Not a vague "inconsistencies found" — she names the exact conflicting details, ready to hand to the treating provider or opposing counsel.

She won't block you from using a flawed chronology — but she won't let you export it without you seeing the warning first.

Medical Chronology — Flags Its Own Contradictions

Conflicting mechanism-of-injury accounts get called out explicitly, not smoothed over into one clean story.

View full report →

The intake facts sit right above the QA verdict — so you can see exactly what was checked before RITA calls it clean.

Not every report gets flagged. When the record checks out clean, RITA says that too — the same banner, the opposite verdict.

A clean QA verdict doesn't mean the analysis stops — she still builds out the full litigation timeline underneath it.

Treatment Timeline — Verified Clean

The honesty cuts both ways: this one passed every QA check, and the report says so just as plainly.

View full report →

Liability language stays narrow and factual — tied to a dated record entry, not an advocate's framing.

The suggested range isn't a guess — it's shown with the exact multiplier and specials figure that produced it, fully auditable.

Even in a letter built to persuade, RITA draws a hard line between her computation and counsel's judgment call.

Demand Letter — Knows Where Her Job Ends

The suggested range is deterministic scaffolding, not a legal opinion — and the letter says so in plain English.

View full report →

The numbers behind the honesty.

Every report above came from one source case file — Jordan Avery, a synthetic demo record built to stress-test RITA the way a real case would. Here's what checking her work actually found.

Ask her the question you'd ask a second chair.

Twelve reports won't cover every question a case throws at you. When they don't, ask RITA directly in the query section — she doesn't guess at strategy, she surfaces what the record already says, cited back to the page, so you can build the argument yourself. Every answer traces to a document. If it's not in the record, she tells you that too.

And if that isn't enough — if you need her with you outside the portal, on your phone, mid-deposition-prep at midnight, or shared with your colleagues…

A Note From Our Founder