Intake & medical screening support
This is the line the rest of the offer is built around. In birth injury the number of signed cases a firm produces is set by how many inquiries it can competently review, not by how many it receives. Marketing that ignores that constraint does not just waste money — it actively destroys value, by filling a queue in which the good inquiries go cold.
A capability we are buying, stated plainly
Our documented record is in acquisition, intake and contingency economics. It does not include medical-record screening, which is precisely the piece a medical malpractice partner will probe first. We are retaining a named clinical reviewer — a labour-and-delivery RN, certified nurse-midwife, or maternal-fetal medicine physician — and the Medical Screening & Intake Manual publishes under their name when they are in place. Until then that publication carries an explicit "medical review not yet assigned" notice and makes no clinical assertion, and this page describes the operational system around screening rather than the clinical judgement inside it. We would rather say that here than have you discover it on a call.
The constraint, drawn
What we actually build
| Component | What it is | Who owns the judgement |
|---|---|---|
| Written screening rubric | A documented decision tree from first contact to records decision, with the exclusion criteria the firm has agreed | The firm, advised by its clinical reviewer |
| Intake scripts | Question order, wording, and what intake must never say — no case-value language, no assessment of merit | The firm; we draft, the firm approves |
| Records request workflow | Authorisation templates, provider tracking, chase cadence, and an ageing report | Operational — ours to run or to hand over |
| Capacity model | Reviews per week available, current queue, projected ageing under a given inquiry volume | Shared; it is the number that governs the marketing spend |
| Screen-out taxonomy | Categorised reasons, fed back into targeting weekly | Ours to maintain, the firm’s to validate |
| Quality audit | A sample of screened-out inquiries re-reviewed, to catch a rubric that is throwing away cases | The firm’s clinical reviewer |
| Screen-out reason | Marketing consequence |
|---|---|
| Outside the firm’s jurisdictions | Geographic targeting is leaking; tighten it or add a referral route |
| Timeline clearly outside any applicable limitation period | Creative is reaching the wrong cohort; adjust intent segmentation |
| Not a birth-related matter at all | Keyword or audience contamination; negative lists and exclusions |
| Birth-related but no indication of a departure from care | Expected and irreducible. This is the cost of the category, not a targeting failure |
| Already represented | Usually a competitive-brand or directory placement issue |
| Records never obtained — inquiry went cold | Not a screening failure. A process failure, and the most recoverable loss in the funnel |
Scope boundary. We build and run the operational system. We do not evaluate claims, we do not render clinical opinions, and we do not tell any family whether they have a case. Those judgements belong to the firm and to licensed clinicians. See our disclaimer.
The full manual, free and on-page → · Grade a real intake call against the rubric →
What we report
| Metric | Role | Reported as |
|---|---|---|
| Inquiries reviewed per week, against capacity | Primary | Headline. The constraint, measured. |
| Median time from inquiry to first screening decision | Primary | Ageing is where viable cases are lost. |
| Cost per case surviving records review | Primary | The real acquisition metric once screening exists. |
| Screen-out reasons, categorised | Diagnostic | Tells the marketing side exactly what to stop buying. |
| Inquiry volume | Operational | Appendix. It is an input, not a result. |
| Phase | Length | What happens | What you get |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 · Diagnostic | 3 weeks | Market sizing from our data, audit of current spend against cost per signed case, screening-capacity model | A written plan and a decision. Credited in full against the first three months of any retainer. |
| 1 · Instrumentation | Weeks 1–4 | Tracking rebuilt so every inquiry carries its source through to the case management system | A funnel you can audit. Nothing is optimised before it can be measured. |
| 2 · Build | Weeks 3–10 | Channel build, creative, landing pages, intake scripts and screening rubric | Assets you own outright, in your accounts, under your name. |
| 3 · Operate | Ongoing | Weekly optimisation against cost per signed case, monthly against cost per case surviving review | A monthly report that leads with signed cases, not impressions. |
When this is the wrong service for you
If your firm already has a nurse consultant, a written screening rubric, and a measured time-to-decision under a week, you do not need this line. Buy demand instead and let us instrument it. This service exists for firms whose review capacity is undefined — which, in our experience of the market, is most of them, and is not a criticism of anyone.
Related
Paid search & Local Services Ads
The most expensive inventory in legal, bought against a signed-case target rather than a click target.
Paid social
Demand creation for a population that does not know a claim may still be live. Handled without exploiting grief.
SEO & AI search
Built to be quoted by answer engines, not only ranked by search engines. Both are measured separately.
What this costs → · Book a call → · Read the free library first →
Authorship & review
- Author
- Kevin Schwaner, Founder; Chief Marketing Officer. Credentials.
- Last reviewed
- Legal review
- Not yet assigned. This page describes marketing practice, not law, and gives no legal advice. Rules cited are linked to the primary source so you can read them directly. See Editorial Standards.
- Corrections
- Found an error? Tell us and it goes in the dated corrections log, whether or not it flatters us.