SAMPLE REPORT · fictional customer created for system verification · no real persons or data
100% AI-AUTOMATED REPORT · produced by the AI Council · never reviewed by any human being
DisabilityCheck · AI Opinion
100% AI disability-claim strength assessment

LTD appeal - back pain

Client
Test Client Kowalski
Matter
My claim was denied — is an appeal supported?
Region
Quebec, Canada
Package
DisabilityCheck — 5-AI Council
Is the file strong enough to appeal the insurer's denial of own-occupation LTD benefits for chronic back pain based on 'insufficient objective evidence of total disability'?
Private by design: every AI model ran on AWS Bedrock under a signed HIPAA BAA — no outside model was contacted, nothing was stored, and none of this is used for training. Council: Claude Sonnet 4.6 · Amazon Nova Pro · Llama 4 Maverick · Claude Opus 4.1 · Mistral Pixtral Large. Chair: Claude Opus 4.1.
1

Opinion

Panel consensus
Moderate

Appeal has merit but file requires critical documentation before submission

MRI-confirmed L5-S1 herniation with nerve root contact plus EMG-confirmed chronic radiculopathy directly contradicts the 'insufficient objective evidence' denial. However, missing FCE, lack of specialist opinion, and inadequate functional documentation create vulnerabilities that must be remedied before filing.

2

Medical & functional chronology

Panel consensus
DateEventSource
3 years agoL5-S1 disc herniation with left leg radiculopathy onsetclient narrative
UndatedFirst round physiotherapy completedclient narrative
UndatedSecond round physiotherapy completedclient narrative
UndatedCortisone injections x3 administeredclient narrative
UndatedMRI lumbar spine: L5-S1 posterolateral disc herniation with left S1 nerve root contacttest-records.pdf
UndatedMRI cervical spine: C5-C6 disc herniation abutting right C6 nerve roottest-records.pdf
UndatedEMG: chronic left S1 radiculopathy confirmedtest-records.pdf
UndatedSurgery consult: deemed poor surgical candidateclient narrative
RecentLaboratory: pre-diabetic glucose 6.1, HbA1c 5.9%, low ferritin 11, low hemoglobin 118, low B12 210, low vitamin D 48test-records.pdf
UndatedFunctional limitations reported: standing ≤20 minutes, lifting ≤5 kgclient narrative
UndatedFCE appointment missed - client states never notifiedclient narrative
UndatedLTD claim denied for 'insufficient objective evidence of total disability'client narrative
3

AI Council opinion

AI Council consensus

Impression

48-year-old warehouse worker with objective evidence of L5-S1 disc herniation causing chronic S1 radiculopathy, failed conservative treatment, and reported functional limitations incompatible with physical occupation demands

Analysis — diagnosis, functional limitations, work capacity, documentation quality

Diagnosis: L5-S1 disc herniation with chronic left S1 radiculopathy confirmed by MRI and EMG. Objective findings: MRI shows nerve root contact, EMG confirms chronic radiculopathy. Functional limitations: self-reported ≤20 min standing, ≤5 kg lifting vs warehouse work requiring sustained standing/lifting. Work capacity: likely unable to perform material duties of warehouse worker. Documentation quality: objective pathology strong but functional documentation critically deficient - no FCE, no specialist functional opinion, no quantified physician restrictions. Metabolic comorbidities present but unaddressed. Cervical finding unexplained.

Prognosis & expected duration

No documented prognosis in file - surgery deemed inappropriate, conservative treatment exhausted

What the file still needs before you submit

1) Written proof of FCE non-notification 2) Detailed functional capacity report from treating physician with quantified restrictions/ROM/pain scales 3) Physiatrist or orthopedic specialist functional opinion 4) Address cervical MRI finding 5) Document that metabolic issues don't explain functional decline

How this opinion was produced
100% AI — you asked the AI Council for its opinion. Independent AI models, all running on AWS Bedrock under a signed HIPAA BAA, debated the facts and a chair model wrote this consensus. No human reviewed it before delivery; nothing was stored; no outside model was contacted.
4

Records that would strengthen the claim

Panel
5

What you should do next

Panel
6

Questions to open the discussion with a specialist

Bring these with you
Our system doesn't replace the specialist — it prepares you for them. Walk in with these and the meeting starts at the deep end.
7

Considerations for your representative

Panel
8

The AI Council — the debate

Claude Sonnet 4.6 · Amazon Nova Pro · Llama 4 Maverick · Claude Opus 4.1 · Mistral Pixtral Large
ExpertOpening positionAfter discussion
Claude Sonnet 4.6Moderate — The file has a credible objective foundation for appeal but contains critical procedural and documentation gaps that must be remedied before filing.Moderate — Appeal is supportable but must not be filed in the file's current state — targeted remediation of five specific gaps is required before submission.
Amazon Nova ProModerate — The file has potential but requires improvements to support an appeal.Moderate — The file has potential but requires improvements to support an appeal.
Llama 4 MaverickWeak — The file lacks sufficient objective evidence to support a disability claim.Moderate — The file has some objective evidence but requires additional documentation to support the claim
Claude Opus 4.1Moderate — Appeal has merit based on objective findings but critical documentation gaps weaken the claim.Moderate — Appeal viable but requires strategic documentation remediation before filing
Mistral Pixtral LargeModerate — The file has some objective findings but lacks critical documentation to strongly support an appeal.Moderate — The file has objective evidence but requires targeted documentation to strengthen the appeal.
Consensus: All experts agreed: MRI/EMG findings provide objective foundation; missed FCE is critical vulnerability; treating physician support letter needs quantified restrictions; specialist functional opinion required; metabolic abnormalities must be addressed
Dissent: Llama rated file 'Weak' vs others' 'Moderate' - ruled Moderate as objective pathology is credible with remediable gaps. Opus suggested 22-year tenure implies accommodation ability - rejected as misapplying own-occupation standard. Nova understated metabolic findings risk - ruled these require proactive addressing.
How the debate evolved: Initial positions ranged from Weak to Moderate verdicts. Sonnet's detailed analysis of Quebec law implications and specific remediation steps shifted consensus toward Moderate with clear action items. Final agreement that file has merit but needs targeted documentation before filing.
9

Your own account (verbatim)

Intake
Your question to the AI Council: My insurer denied my long-term disability for chronic back pain — is my file strong enough for an appeal, and what exactly is missing?

FICTIONAL TEST CASE. Male, 48, warehouse worker 22 years. L5-S1 disc herniation with left leg radiculopathy for 3 years. MRI confirms the herniation, EMG shows chronic radiculopathy. Two rounds of physio, cortisone injections x3, surgery consult said poor candidate. I cannot stand more than 20 minutes or lift over 5 kg. Family doctor supports me. Insurer denied own-occupation LTD saying "insufficient objective evidence of total disability" and noted I missed one functional capacity evaluation (I was never told about the appointment).

Prepared for: Test Client Kowalski · client@example.com · submitted . Files analyzed: test-records.pdf.
Disclaimer: This is an informational, 100% AI-generated assessment of how well the medical evidence in your records supports a disability claim. It is NOT reviewed by a physician or any human before delivery, is not legal or medical advice, does not create any professional relationship, and does not replace your treating physician, a disability lawyer, or the insurer/board — who alone decide your claim.
Privacy: the entire AI Council ran on AWS Bedrock under a signed HIPAA BAA — no outside model was ever contacted, your material was never stored, and none of it is used for training (ours or anyone's). Never reviewed by any human being. When this PDF reached you, every copy of your data was gone.