ChironAI™ OM · compare
The status quo alternative for workers’ comp
The status quo (Word templates, transcription, spreadsheets and a billing company), in its own words: “Stop using more than three different software programs when you could use just one!” — a med-legal software vendor describing the status quo source. Here is where ChironAI OM goes further for California workers’ comp.
Where the difference is on the record
| What matters | ChironAI OM | The status quo (public source) |
|---|---|---|
| Deadlines | One deadline engine computes the statutory clocks in business or calendar days. | Calendars and spreadsheets, or a staffed service selling “Schedule management, evaluation coordination and DWC compliance.” Source, accessed 2026-10-17. |
| Proof of service | Confirmed fax transmission records the §36 service event for Form 122. | Proofs of service prepared by hand (a vendor markets “Create a proof of service every time you go from electronic to print mail” as its fix). Source, accessed 2026-10-17. |
| Billing from the work | The ML charge is drafted when the report is attested. | “Managing multiple user accounts with record summary and billing companies.” Source, accessed 2026-10-17. |
| Statutory content of the report | A §4628 required-content checklist runs before finalising, and nothing finalises without the physician’s signed declaration. | Lab. Code §4628(e): a non-compliant report is “inadmissible as evidence” — in a template workflow, compliance depends on the people using it. Source, accessed 2026-10-17. |
“Not listed” means only that the named public page did not list it on the date shown; vendors often have capabilities they do not market.
See it run on a real claim.
A live demo on a synthetic case — panel, records, report, billing. The AI reasons. The clinician decides.