Bodily-injury demand package review checklist for claims teams.

Start by recording the received time, channel, sender, file names, file hashes, page counts, and any transmission note. Preserve the original files before renaming, splitting, OCR processing, or annotation. If the package arrived across multiple messages or portals, identify which files belong to the same received set.

• Confirm every file opens and record unreadable or password-protected material.
• Detect exact duplicates without discarding the receipt history.
• Separate original evidence from reviewer-created notes and exports.
• Record whether a prior demand or later supplement already exists.

Control objective: another reviewer should be able to reconstruct exactly what the team received without relying on a working folder that may have changed.

Read the demand letter itself before relying on an extracted summary. Capture the stated amount, response date, method of response, named recipients, release or payment language, referenced attachments, and any other asserted condition. Keep the exact page and quoted source context available to the reviewer.

Do not turn a detected date into an operational deadline until a person confirms what the date means. A date can be missing context, superseded by later correspondence, or require jurisdiction-specific interpretation. Route ambiguity to the appropriate claims leader or counsel under the organization’s procedures.

Compare names, dates, vehicles, locations, policy references, claim identifiers, and incident descriptions across the cover letter, police report, medical records, bills, and internal claim information. Differences should remain explicit rather than being silently resolved by whichever document was processed last.

• Distinguish claimant statements from independently documented facts.
• Mark inconsistent dates, names, or incident descriptions for review.
• Keep source pages attached to every material extracted value.
• Do not infer coverage, liability, or fraud conclusions from an extraction conflict.

Organize treatment events by service date and source. Record provider, setting, reported complaint, diagnosis or assessment as documented, procedure, referral, restriction, and follow-up plan where material to the organization’s review. Preserve gaps and conflicting histories as review items.

A chronology is not a medical opinion. It should distinguish what a provider documented from what the claimant or another source reported. The reviewer should be able to open the exact page behind a chronology entry and correct the entry without losing the original extraction.

Inventory bills by provider and service period, then compare totals against itemized statements, summaries, and the demand narrative. Keep billed amounts distinct from paid amounts, adjustments, balances, asserted specials, and any estimate created for another purpose.

• Flag duplicates and overlapping date ranges for confirmation.
• Connect wage or income assertions to the submitted support.
• Record missing statements or unexplained total differences.
• Preserve the calculation method used for every internal subtotal.

Before moving to authority or response preparation, identify what the package says is included and what is actually present. Common operational questions include whether all referenced bills arrived, whether later treatment is mentioned without supporting records, whether images lack reports, and whether the narrative conflicts with source documentation.

Completeness is not a binary AI score. Use explicit expected-versus-received categories, explain why an item matters, assign an owner, and preserve the reviewer’s disposition.

Software can classify documents, extract fields, compare versions, calculate transparent totals, and focus the reviewer on relevant pages. Coverage, liability, causation, valuation, authority, negotiation, payment, and binding communications remain with authorized professionals operating under applicable procedures.

Record who reviewed the material, what evidence they considered, which exceptions remained open, what authority was requested or granted, and whether the prepared communication was actually sent. A prepared draft and an executed claim action are different lifecycle events.

The final record should identify the received document version, source-linked material facts, corrections, open issues, decision owner, approvals, correspondence version, and execution status. Later evidence should create a new review version rather than rewriting the earlier record.

Next: supplemental-demand version controlReview time-limited-demand controlsDemand package review overview