Our AI identifies evidence that helps establish liability under Washington's pure comparative fault system (RCW 4.22.005). Unlike contributory negligence states, Washington allows plaintiffs to recover damages regardless of their degree of fault, with awards reduced proportionally by the plaintiff's percentage of fault. For example, a plaintiff who is 80% at fault can still recover 20% of their damages. Our system analyzes medical records to identify documentation that can help minimize the plaintiff's comparative fault percentage while maximizing the defendant's liability. We highlight medical evidence that can help establish the defendant's primary responsibility, while also identifying factors that might reduce allegations of plaintiff fault. The analysis focuses on timeline evidence, pre-existing conditions, and treatment compliance documentation that supports causation arguments linking the defendant's actions directly to the plaintiff's injuries. This approach is particularly valuable in Washington cases involving multiple defendants, where the state's joint and several liability rules (RCW 4.22.070) apply differently depending on the plaintiff's degree of fault. Our system helps identify medical evidence to maximize recovery potential under these complex rules by establishing clear causation chains and injury attribution.

Our system identifies evidence that helps support medical malpractice claims under Washington's healthcare liability laws. Washington requires plaintiffs to file a 90-day notice of intent to sue before filing a medical malpractice lawsuit (RCW 7.70.100), and our analysis helps organize medical evidence that should be included with this notice. Washington law requires proof of four elements for medical malpractice claims (RCW 7.70.040): (1) the healthcare provider failed to meet the standard of care, (2) the breach caused injury, (3) the plaintiff suffered damages, and (4) the defendant was the source of the injury. Our system identifies documentation supporting each element, with particular attention to evidence establishing the standard of care and causation. Washington requires expert testimony to establish most elements of medical malpractice, and our analysis identifies medical documentation that can support expert opinions. Washington has a three-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims, which may be extended by the discovery rule up to eight years from the act or omission, and our system helps identify evidence relevant to these timeframes. Additionally, Washington no longer applies a cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases since the Washington Supreme Court found such caps unconstitutional in Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp. (1989), allowing our analysis to identify all potential damages without statutory limitations.

Our AI analyzes medical records to identify key evidence supporting compensability under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act (Title 51 RCW). We highlight documentation that supports the causal connection between work activities and the injury or occupational disease. Washington has a unique workers' compensation system administered by the Department of Labor and Industries rather than private insurers, with specific forms and requirements. Our system helps identify medical evidence that supports the required elements for both injury claims (sudden, tangible events) and occupational disease claims (conditions arising naturally and proximately from distinctive conditions of employment). For occupational diseases, Washington requires evidence that the condition arose "naturally and proximately" from employment, meaning the condition came about as a natural consequence of the distinctive conditions of the worker's particular employment. Our AI identifies medical documentation supporting this nexus. Washington also uses a category rating system for permanent partial disability, rather than the AMA Guides used in many states, and our system helps identify medical evidence supporting appropriate ratings under Washington's specific categories. Additionally, we help identify evidence supporting the compensability of both physical and mental conditions, noting that in Washington, unlike some states, mental conditions without physical injury can be compensable as occupational diseases if they meet the higher "objective standard" of causation.

Yes, our AI helps identify and organize evidence relevant to Washington's approach to damages. Washington does not cap compensatory damages in personal injury or medical malpractice cases, following the Washington Supreme Court's ruling in Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp. (1989) that such caps are unconstitutional. Our system helps identify and categorize all potential damages to maximize recovery, including medical expenses, lost income, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-economic damages. Washington follows the "reasonable value" approach for medical expenses, which may differ from the amount billed, particularly in cases involving insurance write-offs. Our analysis helps identify evidence to support the reasonable value of medical services. Washington allows for recovery of future economic and non-economic damages, and our system helps identify medical evidence supporting these potential future losses. In wrongful death cases, Washington law (RCW 4.20.010, 4.20.020, 4.20.046, and 4.20.060) allows both survival claims and wrongful death claims with different measures of damages, and our analysis can identify medical evidence supporting these separate claims. Additionally, while Washington generally disfavors punitive damages, it does allow for exemplary damages in specific statutory contexts, and our system can help identify evidence that may support such claims where applicable.

Our AI is specifically trained to identify and highlight evidence that meets Washington's unique documentation requirements across various practice areas. In personal injury cases, Washington's pure comparative fault system places a premium on documentation that clearly establishes causation and the extent of injuries attributable to each party. Our system identifies medical records and evidence that can help establish this causation and properly attribute injuries. For medical malpractice cases, Washington requires specific documentation to support the standard of care violation, causation, and damages, and our system helps identify records that support these elements. In workers' compensation claims, Washington has specific documentation requirements for both injury and occupational disease claims. For occupational diseases, Washington requires more extensive documentation showing that the condition arose "naturally and proximately" from employment conditions that are distinctive to the particular employment. Our system identifies medical evidence supporting this connection. Washington also uses its own permanent partial disability rating system rather than the AMA Guides, and our analysis helps identify medical documentation supporting appropriate ratings under these state-specific categories. For occupational disease claims involving mental conditions, Washington requires "objective" evidence of work-related stress that exceeds that experienced by similarly situated workers, and our system helps identify this type of documentation. Additionally, in all types of cases, our system assists with identifying evidence of aggravation of pre-existing conditions, which is particularly important in Washington given its recognition of the "eggshell plaintiff" rule and its approach to apportionment of damages.