Prepare stronger EEOICPA claims before they're reviewed.
ClaimPathAI helps attorneys and authorized representatives understand, in one operational frame, how strong the file is, what is most likely to stall it, and what should be built next before adjudication-facing review begins.
Readiness scoring tied to file posture, not generic summary text.
Evidence-gap visibility before the reviewer identifies the weakness first.
Per-attorney workflow that moves from analysis into packet-ready drafting support.
EEOICPA attorney fees are capped by federal statute at 2% for initial filing plus 10% of any objection differential (20 C.F.R. § 30.603). ClaimPathAI is priced for that environment.
Month-to-month subscription
Cancel anytime. No long-term contract.
Named-seat licensing
One subscription equals one practitioner.
Preparation support only
ClaimPathAI supports review and drafting discipline, not legal judgment.
Preparation Support Only
Product Preview
A workspace built for professional claim preparation
Readiness posture, blockers, reference basis, and drafting direction are visible in one calm operational frame.
Workflow
Nevada Test Site · Chronic Silicosis · Score 68
Decision-Ready
Medical causation narrative lacks peer-reviewed literature support
Add literature →
Covered facility employment dates require confirmation
Review employment →
Five-pillar breakdown
| Pillar | Score | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employment | 14/20 | Partial | → |
| Exposure | 16/20 | Strong | → |
| Diagnosis | 18/20 | Strong | → |
| Causation | 11/20 | Gap | → |
| Literature | 9/20 | Gap | → |
ClaimPathAI's workflow is structured around a decomposition principle: EEOICPA claim preparation breaks into five distinct task modules — Diagnosis, Employment, Exposure, Causation, and Supporting Evidence — each with its own evidence requirements, its own failure modes, and its own drafting output. Preparation workflows that treat these as one undifferentiated task produce inconsistent results. Workflows that address each module explicitly produce files that are structurally ready for examiner scrutiny.
Built for attorneys and authorized representatives handling EEOICPA claims.
Organized around preparation discipline, not chat-style novelty.
Designed to help practitioners see what the file still needs before submission pressure sets in.
Your data, your control
Your documents stay yours.
ClaimPathAI redacts every uploaded document before any AI analysis runs. Names, identifiers, and case-sensitive details get replaced with role labels — [Claimant], [SSN REDACTED] — so the AI never sees raw PII.
Why Claims Get Delayed Or Denied
Preparation breaks down long before the reviewer says so.
The most expensive claim problems are usually visible before submission: weak employment support, thin exposure detail, and medical development that is not yet ready for scrutiny.
The employment record is incomplete
Covered facility history, role detail, and period support are often too thin to survive review without additional development.
Denial risk
Coverage questions remain open when the file reaches review.
Exposure allegations stay too general
Claims slow down when the record does not connect substances, pathways, and site-specific context with enough precision for adjudication-facing review.
Denial risk
The claimed pathway lacks the specificity needed to withstand scrutiny.
Medical support is not ready for scrutiny
Even strong facts can stall when causation language, literature support, or packet assembly are not yet developed to a review-ready standard.
Denial risk
Causation support appears underdeveloped even when some facts may already help.
Why this program demands structured preparation
EEOICPA is one of the most preparation-intensive federal compensation programs in existence. Claims move through a strictly sequenced adjudication pipeline — Recommended Decision at the district office, a 60-day objection window, then a Final Decision from the Final Adjudication Branch — each stage with distinct evidentiary requirements and no tolerance for underdeveloped records.
The causation standard is demanding: for non-SEC cancer claims, the record must support a probability-of-causation calculation under 42 C.F.R. Part 82 showing the condition was at least as likely as not caused by occupational radiation exposure. The burden of proof rests entirely with the claimant throughout (20 C.F.R. § 30.111(a)). Attorney fees are capped by federal statute at 2% for initial filing plus 10% of any objection differential — making preparation efficiency a direct practice economics issue, not just a quality concern.
ClaimPathAI is built from the failure modes of this specific adjudication process. Every pillar maps to a distinct denial cause. Every blocker maps to a specific next action.
What The Readiness Score Means
A stronger shorthand for case posture.
The readiness score is designed to help practitioners understand, quickly and credibly, whether a file is still exposed, still being strengthened, or materially closer to review-ready posture.
How practitioners use it
The score is not a filing decision on its own. It is a compact case-posture signal that helps practitioners decide whether to develop evidence, strengthen causation support, or move into packet assembly with more confidence.
Needs development
Material factual, evidentiary, or causation gaps remain before the file is review-ready.
In development
The file has meaningful support, but still needs targeted proof or stronger narrative development.
Decision ready
The submission appears substantially prepared, with clearer support for adjudication-facing review.
Standardized scoring is how legal technology earns practitioner trust. Harvard Law School's Center on the Legal Profession identifies standardized evaluative metrics as the mechanism by which legal technology systems demonstrate that they maintain quality while reducing cost. The readiness score is not a filing decision — it is a structured input that gives attorney judgment a cleaner, more consistent starting point.
What You Get
Operational outcomes, not just feature access.
ClaimPathAI is structured to help practitioners move a file forward with clearer prioritization, stronger development discipline, and work product that can actually be used in practice.
Triage the file before reviewer pressure sets in
See whether the case is still exposed, still being strengthened, or materially closer to review-ready posture.
See what will slow the claim down
Surface evidence gaps, weak links, and next actions before those issues become reviewer-facing problems.
Build a more supportable causation record
Use retrieval-backed facility context, literature support, and cleaner medical development to strengthen the file before submission.
Turn analysis into usable work product
Move from readiness scoring into employment review, exposure development, packet assembly, and RD draft support without restarting the workflow.
Program Structure
Built from the failure modes of this specific program
60 days
FAB objection window — the only opportunity to contest a Recommended Decision before Final Adjudication
42 C.F.R. Part 82
The probability-of-causation standard governing non-SEC cancer claims — requires dose reconstruction, not just diagnosis
2% + 10%
Federal cap on EEOICPA attorney fees — per 20 C.F.R. § 30.603 — making preparation efficiency a direct practice economics issue
5 pillars
Diagnosis, Employment, Exposure, Causation, Supporting Evidence — each with distinct failure modes ClaimPathAI maps explicitly
Early Access
Designed with EEOICPA practitioners
ClaimPathAI was built in close collaboration with authorized representatives and attorneys handling active EEOICPA matters. Early access is limited to 30 named seats so that the workflow reflects how practitioners actually prepare files — not how software designers imagine they do.
Early access — founding practitioners
Built with practitioners, not for them.
ClaimPathAI is developed in collaboration with authorized representatives and attorneys who handle active EEOICPA cases. Their workflow shaped every feature.
“The readiness score gave me a structured view of where the file stood before I spent hours on development. I knew exactly which gaps to address first.”
Founding practitioner
Authorized Representative · Early access program
“I used to spend a full day assembling the packet manually. The workflow cut that to under two hours and caught an employment gap I would have missed.”
Founding practitioner
EEOICPA Attorney · Early access program
“The blocker cards told me the causation language was too weak before I submitted. The physician letter template gave my doctor exactly what she needed to strengthen it.”
Founding practitioner
Claimant Advocate · Early access program
Testimonials reflect individual practitioner experiences during early access and do not guarantee specific outcomes. ClaimPathAI is a preparation support tool — it does not provide legal advice or guarantee claim approval.
Security & Privacy
Your client data, protected.
Built for the professional standards your practice requires.
Encrypted and isolated
Case data is encrypted at rest and stored in an isolated workspace that only you can access. Other ClaimPathAI users — including other attorneys — cannot see your cases.
Never used for AI training
Your case content is sent to Anthropic's Claude API for analysis under contractual terms that prohibit training on API data. ClaimPathAI does not use your case data to train models, and we do not share data with third parties.
Built for professional use
Decision-support framing on every AI output. Audit logging on every analysis run. Data Processing Agreement available for firms with procurement requirements.
Pricing
Clear licensing for serious claim preparation.
One rate. Everything you need for active EEOICPA preparation across your matters.
Your client documents stay yours — redacted before any AI sees them.
Solo
Everything you need to prepare and file EEOICPA claims with confidence.
30-day money-back guarantee — full refund, no hassle.
Legal Posture
Strong support. Clear limits.
ClaimPathAI is designed to strengthen preparation discipline while keeping legal judgment, fact verification, and filing responsibility with the practitioner.
Advisory Scope
Independent Review Required