On May 28, 2026, Chronicle hosted the latest session in the Advancing Technology in Disability Law series, a live panel with two partners, Superinsight and Workscape Analytics. The premise was simple: an SSD case is won in preparation, not in the hearing room. The firms that walk in with complete records, a synthesized residual functional capacity (RFC) assessment, and vocational data matched to their client’s limitations are not reacting to the vocational expert (VE), they are ready for whatever gets cited.
The panel traced a single case from ERE pull to a hearing-ready vocational argument, and demonstrated all three platforms live: Chronicle for ERE monitoring and case records, Superinsight for RFC synthesis and AI medical chronologies, and Workscape Analytics for Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS) job-number strategy under SSR 24-3p. Chronicle founder Nikhil Pai, Superinsight co-founder Luke Connally, and Workscape Analytics CEO Kristen Medina-Perez each walked through their step, then fielded a long run of live questions from practicing attorneys and representatives.
This recap covers the full session: the key takeaways, each step of the workflow, the special offers, and the complete Q&A. You can catch the replay here:
Speakers:
- Will Yang, moderator, leads events, community, and partnerships at Chronicle; ran the session and fed live chat questions to the panel.
- Nikhil Pai, Founder of Chronicle, the ERE monitoring and case-tracking platform that checks the SSA e-file daily for every monitored case. Chronicle now monitors more than 177,000 cases and 7.5 million SSA documents across 2,100+ disability professionals.
- Luke Connally, Co-Founder of Superinsight, a military veteran who built AI-driven medical record analysis for disability and injury-focused law firms.
- Kristen Medina-Perez, CEO of Workscape Analytics, focused on vocational data and hearing strategy for SSD cases under SSR 24-3p.
Key Takeaways
You don’t have to go into a hearing blind. You don’t have to be reactive to what the VE is going to say.
Kristen Medina-Perez, Workscape Analytics
If you’re on a fixed-interval review cycle, you’re missing details, you’re scrambling at the last minute, and there’s no way you’re being alerted of what’s happening at the SSA.
Nikhil Pai, Chronicle
The patterns that emerged:
-
The ERE file is raw material, not a case record. Converting ERE downloads into a working, organized, always-current record is the first preparation step, not a nice-to-have. Chronicle does it by checking every e-file, every day.
-
A summary is not an RFC. A summary narrates what happened; a synthesized RFC extracts what the client can and cannot do, lift, bend, stoop, stand, finger, with source citations that translate objectively into job numbers.
-
SSR 24-3p moved the burden onto attorneys. The rule shifted the job of challenging VE testimony from the judge to the attorney, and opened the door to ORS data. Preparation is how you meet that burden.
-
ORS data is the new tool on the belt. With more than 350 measurable data points mapped to SOC groups, ORS lets attorneys anticipate job numbers and press the VE on methodology, instead of walking in empty-handed.
-
The three tools compound when connected. Chronicle keeps the file current, Superinsight turns it into a cited RFC, and Workscape turns that RFC into vocational strategy. Skip a layer and the prep breaks down at that seam.
Why does the ERE-to-VE workflow break down for most firms?
Will Yang opened by naming the failure mode most firms recognize. ERE releases bury critical documents. Firms check manually, by the mail, or with older platforms that poll at fixed intervals, and miss records entirely. Late exhibits force rushed, last-minute prep. Medical records do not become an RFC without hours of manual work, with attorneys spending two to four hours pulling functional limitations by hand before they can even build a theory of the case. And then VE testimony catches firms off guard, because without occupational data in hand the cross-examination is reactive, not strategic. The VE knows the numbers, and the attorney often does not.
The result, Will explained, is three silos that do not talk to one another. Each tool solves its own slice, but the handoffs leak time and information. The panel’s argument was that the seams are where cases are lost, and that closing them is mostly a sequencing problem.
Nikhil Pai connected the breakdown to a single root cause: the flow of information.
Traditionally, a lot of firms do a fixed-interval review cycle. Maybe 60 days out before hearing they’ll review the case, and then maybe they’ll wait until 5 days out. The issue is a lot of things can happen in that time period, new medical records coming in, things being exhibited at the last minute, the earnings report getting filed, a medical expert getting added, or the VE resume coming in.
The SSA does not alert you when it acts, so a fixed-interval cycle guarantees blind spots. “Whether you’re running one case or hundreds of cases, you just don’t know, and you’re being reactive rather than proactive on your hearing prep,” Nikhil said.
How does Chronicle keep the case record current?
Step one is making the record trustworthy. Chronicle’s answer is frequency: it monitors the ERE on the firm’s behalf, every day.
Chronicle gets your ERE credentials, and we actually check every e-file for every client, every single day. So if you have 20 clients, we’re opening all 20 files every single day. If you have 200 clients, we will open all those files every single day to see what is new and notify you through our dashboard and our notification system.
In the live demo, Nikhil walked through the Chronicle dashboard: hearings, decisions, and, most importantly, a recent documents section he described as “like your virtual mailbox.” New items since the last view are flagged with a blue dot, and an unread filter shows exactly what has come in since the last check. Documents are OCR’d and viewable in Chronicle without downloading. A notification system lets staff claim cases and get alerted the moment a document is added or exhibited, and a subscribable hearing calendar keeps the docket current even when the SSA changes hearing dates or ALJs.
Crucially for the rest of the workflow, Chronicle assembles the exhibit packet that gets handed downstream. “Whatever you send out to Superinsight or other providers will always have the latest set of medical records and exhibits,” Nikhil noted. That up-to-date packet is what makes the next two steps reliable rather than stale.
What turns medical records into a defensible RFC?
Luke Connally framed step two from hard experience. Before Superinsight, he spent years inside the VA side of disability work, looking at “warehouses full of files.”
Tens of thousands of files with hundreds of thousands of pages, the struggle’s real. You have to get to the information that matters, and oftentimes it’s found on one page within that large corpus of information.
With the Chronicle integration, the old download-organize-upload cycle collapses to an API key: paste the Chronicle key into Superinsight’s settings, connect, and import the case with its files already on standby. From the reports tab, the attorney selects the exhibited file and chooses a report, a summary, a five-step review with chronology (“like two reports in one”), or the new Workscape Analytics report that extracts the RFC and packages it via API to Workscape. Luke’s strongest advice was about timing: start early, because a report can be rebuilt with additional evidence up to three more times after the initial run.
In the Q&A, Luke drew the line between a summary and a synthesized RFC. A summary is “a high-level passover”, John Doe saw Dr. Jones, right hip pain 5 out of 10, given Tylenol, follow up later. A synthesized RFC is different:
Furthermore, on the RFC side, you’re getting straight to: can they lift, bend, stoop, crawl, stand, finger, all the different aspects of what we need to function in our daily activities, especially in a work environment. Which then translates objectively to actual job numbers.
And the citation layer is what makes that RFC usable at the VE table. Luke kept it plain: “the judge only cares about where’s it at in the file. So if you can’t cite to it, then you’re going to have a hard time arguing your position.” Kristen added that citations are what let an attorney confidently propose their own hypotheticals, you have the medical-record support to advocate for each limitation’s inclusion in the calculation.
How do you walk into a VE hearing with your own numbers?
Step three is where preparation meets SSR 24-3p. Kristen Medina-Perez explained that the rule “changed everything” in two ways: it shifted the burden of challenging VE testimony onto the attorney, and it allowed VEs to use data sources beyond the DOT, namely the Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS).
It shifted the burden to attorneys to now raise questions and issues to challenge the VE testimony live in the hearing. That’s no longer the judge’s job, it’s yours.
Because the hearing changed, the prep has to change too. The Workscape demo took the same Arthur Miller RFC that Superinsight extracted and applied ORS calculations to it. The first pass returned high national job numbers, “not a favorable look,” as Kristen put it, but that, she argued, is exactly the point: “all information is powerful when it comes to your case prep.” A weak result tells the attorney they need more medical evidence before the hearing, while there is still time to get it.
She then showed the inverse. Adding ORS factors drawn from the record, no bending, no crawling, no crouching, only frequent fine manipulation, occasional gross manipulation, a sit-stand option, produced “a significant reduction in job numbers.” Layering in the cognitive and mental section, a part of ORS Kristen called “massive” because those requirements were never quantifiable at the hearing level before, reduced the numbers further. The lesson:
ORS covers more than 350 data points, and if you can map those to the medical record using something like the extraction of the RFC from Superinsight, then you’re going in with essentially bulletproof evidence of how and why all of these different limitations need to be included in the VE’s consideration of the job numbers.
Run the report early and it doubles as a checklist for evidence gathering and a map of which factors to drill down on in cross. The takeaway Kristen returned to repeatedly: “You should not go into a hearing empty-handed, especially since the burden is now with you to challenge the VE’s testimony and challenge those faulty job number estimates.”
What does the connected workflow look like end to end?
Will Yang summarized the stack as a relay where Chronicle is the glue. When the ERE drops a new document, the team gets alerted; that current file is pushed to Superinsight, where records are analyzed, matched to the SSA listings, and distilled into a cited RFC; that RFC flows by API to Workscape, where ORS calculations turn it into job numbers and a cross-examination strategy. The same Arthur Miller case demonstrated by Nikhil reappeared in Superinsight and again in Workscape, one case, three platforms, no re-keying.
The panel was candid about what happens if a firm uses only part of the stack. Without Chronicle, Nikhil said, “you still have to manually get the files, upload them to Superinsight, and stay on top of what’s changing,” losing the constant updates that keep strategy current. Without a clear RFC, Kristen noted, Workscape’s process is “halted before you can even get going”, which is why having Superinsight extract the RFC matters as the starting point for vocational strategy. The argument was not that any one tool is mandatory, but that the prep breaks down precisely at whichever seam you leave open.
The ERE to VE Starter Kit
The panel closed the main segment with a stacked offer for attendees, redeemable with the code ERE2VE mentioned to any of the three teams:
- Chronicle: 14 free case monitors for firms that have never tracked ERE monitoring with Chronicle. Book a demo.
- Superinsight: private beta access plus $125 off your first month. Book a demo.
- Workscape Analytics: one free vocational case consultation and 50% off your first monthly subscription. Book a demo.
Attendees who submitted feedback also received a summary document covering how the three platforms connect. If you would like to try the workflow on one of your own cases, book a demo and ask about the integrations, or reach the team at support@chroniclelegal.com.
Frequently Asked Questions
What’s the most common ERE management mistake firms make before they automate?
Being left scrambling because the ERE is not checked often enough. Nikhil described the pattern: a judge exhibits something at the last minute, or a record you uploaded gets processed but not exhibited until later, and now you have to rebuild your file with the right exhibit numbers the day before the hearing. Missed forms, like a client’s agreement to a telephone hearing, create the same fire drill. “When you’re dealing with many cases, or you’re a solo and you just don’t have the time, not having that flow of information and checking the ERE can cause a lot of churn.”
Does Workscape flag an EM-24027 REV violation if the VE cites an obsolete job like document preparer?
Not directly, and Kristen explained why: those are DOT codes Social Security labeled obsolete, and ORS data is built on SOC groups, not DOT codes. “ORS does not deal with DOT codes. So the short answer is no, because of that. ORS is mapped to SOC groups.” The shift from DOT to SOC is itself a major rewiring of how the analysis works.
How does Workscape Analytics differ from SkillTRAN?
In several ways, but the most fundamental is the data source. SkillTRAN produces job-number estimates down to the DOT code, “which is interesting considering that BLS never published a way to do that.” Workscape uses ORS data with classifications as new as 2025, while the DOT was last updated in 1991 (with many classifications dating to the 1970s and 80s). Workscape’s methodology is BLS’s own published “Basic Approach,” linked in the platform. As Kristen put it: “It’s essentially a fancy calculator, really. All we did was build an interface for people to access the ORS data.”
Why do firms come to Chronicle, and what is usually missing from their workflow?
It often starts at the lower levels. Volume builds at initial and recon, where firms realize they would have to keep hiring case managers just to open the mail and track cases. Chronicle slots in to monitor those lower-level cases so the team can act proactively. The other common trigger is a closed case management system. As Nikhil noted, “Prevail does not have an open API so you can connect your data to Superinsight or to Workscape Analytics”, so Chronicle runs in tandem with the CMS, providing the API layer that connects newer tools without forcing a painful migration. (See Do You Need Chronicle if You Already Use Prevail? for more.)
How much do the three platforms cost?
Pricing was shared live. Chronicle starts at $9 per case for the lifetime of the case; the Pro plan required for these integrations is $14 per case for the lifetime of the case, a one-time fee even if the case is remanded multiple times (full details on the Chronicle pricing page). Superinsight reports run as low as $80 for an RFC report or $160 for a five-step review with chronology, with volume discounts and annual, monthly, and on-demand options. Workscape is subscription-based: a basic plan covering the top 100 SOC codes, and a premium plan returning all 460 SOC codes plus advanced reporting that “starts at $178 per month,” with annual discounts and special codes for NOSSCR members.
Has the ORS-based approach been peer-reviewed?
Kristen said the data is in active use and under outside scrutiny: Social Security representatives, members of Congress on Ways and Means, and scholars are engaged with Workscape, with articles in progress. Testimony is being given based on the published ORS data because, fundamentally, Workscape is “not applying any proprietary anything to the numbers, we’re simply making the data accessible.”
Watch the Full Replay
Upcoming Events
5 Ways to Build a Consistent Referral Engine for SSD Cases Most SSD clients don’t find their attorney through Google, they come from social workers, case managers, healthcare providers, and past clients. Join Chronicle and Rachel Carlson of PR Legal Marketing for a practical session on the five strategies firms use to build a referral engine that runs month over month.
June 10, 2026 · 12:00 PM CT · Register here
This was the latest session in Chronicle’s Advancing Technology in Disability Law series, where we bring together operators, advocates, and technologists to help disability firms modernize how they work. Keep an eye out for future installments covering new Chronicle features, automation best practices, and partner collaborations. For questions or to learn more about Chronicle’s ERE monitoring and case tracking platform, visit chroniclelegal.com.
Full Session Transcript
The following is a cleaned and lightly edited transcript of the full panel discussion. Speaker voice is preserved; filler words and false starts have been removed for readability.
Will Yang: Hello, everyone, and welcome to today’s session, From ERE to VE: A 3-Step Strategy for Winning SSD Cases at hearing. This is part of Chronicle’s Advancing Technology in Disability Law series, where we bring together the tools and workflows that are helping disability firms do sharper, faster hearing prep.
You will get a full replay from today’s session in your inbox after this, so there’s no need to take detailed notes. We’ll also have a summary doc you’ll be able to download right after this workshop if you submit the feedback form. So if you have notes along the way, you’re welcome to take them, but just be aware we help you out on that side as well.
If you have any questions along the way, you’re welcome to ask them in the chat. The only thing we ask is that you drop two hashtags in front of your question. It makes it easy for our teams to follow along and make sure we answer it over the course of today’s workshop.
By the end of today’s session, what you’re going to learn is how Chronicle turns ERE files into a complete, organized case record so that nothing’s missing and it’s always current, how Superinsight synthesizes those records into a full RFC with source citations, and how Workscape Analytics turns that RFC into vocational strategy for the VE table. What’s really cool is that you’re going to see this entire workflow live across the three platforms, so you can see how all the platforms communicate with one another.
A quick roadmap of where we’re going. We’re going to frame up the problem and explain why the ERE to VE prep workflow breaks down for most disability firms. From there, we’ll pass it over to Nikhil from Chronicle to share more about ERE monitoring in action. Nikhil will pass it to Luke from Superinsight, who’s going to talk about RFC extraction and AI chronologies that turn records into hearing prep. We’ll then pass it to Kristen from Workscape to talk about occupational data and VE cross-examination strategies. Then we’ll recap, talk about the full stack, share a special offer for folks today, and take any questions along the way.
A quick introduction for the panelists. We first have Nikhil from Chronicle, the platform that’s automating ERE monitoring and case tracking for disability firms. Then Luke from Superinsight, a military veteran who has built AI-driven medical record analysis for disability and injury-focused law firms. And lastly, Kristen from Workscape Analytics, who has a deep focus on the vocational data and hearing strategy for SSD cases. I’m Will. I lead events, community, and partnerships at Chronicle. I’ll be monitoring today and feeding your chat questions to the speakers.
One of the things you’ll come across in this workflow is that the ERE to VE workflow often breaks down, and the reason is simple. ERE releases often bury critical documents. Firms are checking things manually, whether by the mail or using older platforms that check at fixed intervals, which leads to missed records entirely. Late exhibits mean rushed, last-minute hearing prep that attorneys dread. Medical records don’t become an RFC without hours of manual work, so attorneys are often spending two to four hours pulling functional limitations by hand before they can even start building a theory of the case. And then VE testimony catches firms off guard. Without occupational data in hand, cross-examination of the VE is very reactive, not strategic, the VE knows the numbers, and you often don’t. That leaves you with three silos that don’t talk to one another, and it’s a big gap these three platforms can close. So I’m going to pass it over to Nikhil to share more from the ERE side.
Nikhil Pai: Excited to be talking with you all today. As Will mentioned, with hearing prep, one of the core issues is the flow of information. Traditionally, a lot of firms do a fixed-interval review cycle. Maybe 60 days out before hearing they’ll review the case, and then maybe they’ll wait until 5 days out. The issue is a lot of things can happen in that time period, new medical records coming in, things being exhibited at the last minute, the earnings report getting filed, a medical expert getting added, or the VE resume coming in. If you’re on a fixed-interval review cycle, you’re missing details, you’re scrambling at the last minute, and there’s no way you’re being alerted of what’s happening at the SSA, because they don’t have a built-in system for alerting you of what’s in the ERE. Whether you’re running one case or hundreds of cases, you just don’t know, and you’re being reactive rather than proactive on your hearing prep.
The core problem for folks at the hearing level, but at all levels, is you just don’t know what’s going on. When a record gets exhibited, you kind of have to wait until you check the ERE to know something was exhibited. So either you have paralegals doing some regular check, or you’re doing it yourself, and it’s a lot of wasted time and scrambling. What Chronicle does is we monitor the ERE on your behalf. Chronicle gets your ERE credentials, and we actually check every e-file for every client, every single day. So if you have 20 clients, we’re opening all 20 files every single day. If you have 200 clients, we will open all those files every single day to see what is new and notify you through our dashboard and our notification system.
This is the Chronicle dashboard, which some of you may be familiar with. You can see everything from your hearings to your decisions, but most importantly, down here we have the recent documents section. This is like your virtual mailbox. Whenever something changes in the e-file, you’ll be able to see it here, was there a new medical record entered, was there a notice of hearing? It helps you stay on top of what new documents are coming into the ERE so you can detect them as soon as they hit, rather than when you do your scheduled checks.
If I click into one of these clients, Arthur Miller, who is at the hearing stage, I can see the full list of documents from the ERE, and this will always be up-to-date from the last 24 hours. There’s no spending a couple minutes to get the passcode, find the client’s SSN, and log into the ERE, or, if you’re using other platforms, clicking refresh and waiting several minutes to hours to get new data. It’s always available at your fingertips because we update every single day. You can see everything from the exhibit numbers to the actual files, and you can view the documents right out of Chronicle. You don’t have to download them to your computer, they’re all OCR’d and searchable.
What makes Chronicle really great is we try to flag what’s new. We’ll put a little dot on what is new since the last time you viewed this page. So this fee agreement just came in, or, most commonly at the hearing level, the earnings reports finally came in, and they’ll be flagged as little blue dots so you know what’s new since the last time you checked. If you want to filter this down, you can go to unread, and that will show you which documents have come in since the last time you checked Chronicle, so you always know what’s new and what you need to review.
We also have a great notification system, so if you don’t want to open each page in Chronicle every day, you or your staff can claim cases and turn on notifications for new documents. That will notify you and your team whenever a new document is added to the ERE or exhibited. As soon as that hits, you’ll get notified that the thing was exhibited and that you should go review it or update your records. We also have the ability to download the exhibit packet, so if you’re familiar with the full ERE you may have had before, we have that same packet. This is actually what we then send out to Superinsight and down the line, so they can operate off these things. Whatever you send out to Superinsight or other providers will always have the latest set of medical records and exhibits.
One last thing that’s super useful, especially if you’re running quite a few hearings: it’s often hard to stay on top of your schedule and know what hearings are on your docket. We have a great calendar view where you can view all of your hearings in one place, subscribe to it, and add it to your Outlook or Google Calendar, so it’s always automatically updated and you never miss a hearing, given that sometimes the SSA is changing hearing dates and changing ALJs. So this is the core of Chronicle: staying on top of the ERE, what’s changing, and getting notified of those changes. When I transition this over to Luke, they will always have the latest packet, and you don’t get caught scrambling when new records get added. With that, I’ll hand it over to Luke to show what we can actually do with the ERE file.
Luke Connally: I don’t have to preach to the choir how important RFCs are in the process of helping your clients get to the point where they are deemed unable to work for SSA’s purposes. I have a lot of experience in the background of the VA side of disability, and having gone through and spent a lot of time looking at warehouses full of files, tens of thousands of files with hundreds of thousands of pages, the struggle’s real. You have to get to the information that matters, and oftentimes it’s found on one page within that large corpus of information. We’re trying to help you move quicker and more efficiently to the information that helps make a difference, not only for pre-hearing prep but for the hearing itself, with citations. That’s what we’re all about, and that’s what we’re trying to solve.
Once you’re in Superinsight, after you’ve gone through that process within Chronicle and seen that you have up-to-date records, there used to be a slower process. We all love clean workflows. You used to have to create the case and then drag and drop the files from your computer, but with the integration with Chronicle, we simply input our API key from Chronicle, that’s in our settings within Chronicle, and then you can connect. That gives us a nice, clean workflow that saves us a little bit of time, and over time, with many cases, that can be a lot of time. We’re going to go ahead and import that case into the organization that we established.
You can see now that the case has been created. We click into it, and we already have those files on standby. Even though at this point everyone’s OCRing everything, we OCR it again, you can never be too safe. Once we get that, you select the files. We usually just tell everybody to use the exhibited file. We come into the reports tab of the case, choose the files we want to run the report on, and then we have a few options. A lot of people like to run pre-hearing prep later in the process, closer to their hearing date, but I always encourage people to start as early as possible. You can actually rebuild a report on Superinsight with additional evidence up to three additional times after it’s been run initially. Whether you run a five-step review with chronology, or you go with the summary report, they both offer something a little different. This one’s much more granular, it’s like two reports in one.
Then we have the new Workscape Analytics report that allows us to extract those RFCs and package them via API. We send just the RFCs to Kristen over at her shop, and they run all of that through their database and return to us a nicely packaged PDF that you can work with. That’s how you kick off a report with Workscape Analytics. We’ll go ahead and take a look. This is what it looks like when it returns. We get this report back for Arthur Miller. It pulls the information relevant to what’s going on in the ERE, in the case. We’re able to get those RFCs lined up with the citations, so we can click on them and actually see what’s going on. We can verify that the information we’re getting back matches the information within the file. So we can see here, occasionally 20 pounds, frequently 10 pounds, we’re getting back that same information within the report itself. That translates into the most important part: understanding what they can do and what they can’t do. Kristen, I’ll parlay it over to you.
Kristen Medina-Perez: When it comes to preparing for VE testimony, that can be very difficult to do, because you don’t know how the VE is going to testify, or based on what data sources, until you’re in the hearing. Under SSR 24-3p, you guys know that that changed everything. It did two main things. It shifted the burden to attorneys to now raise questions and issues to challenge the VE testimony live in the hearing. That’s no longer the judge’s job, it’s yours. It also allowed VEs to use other data sources besides the DOT, namely the Occupational Requirements Survey, commonly referred to as ORS. And it shifted the burden to the VE to explain their methodology.
Because SSR 24-3p changed the way the hearing process happens in the hearing, it makes sense that it would affect the prep you need going into the hearing. What we’re going to show today is that you don’t have to go into a hearing blind. You don’t have to be reactive to what the VE is going to say. There are ways to anticipate job numbers and go into the hearing with your own evidence to press VEs, specifically in that cross-examination time, about how they’re coming up with the numbers and how they can reconcile the differences between the numbers you have, based on the medical record, and the numbers they’re testifying to.
Looking at this Workscape Analytics report that you can access through Superinsight, like Luke was saying, Superinsight is extracting this RFC based on the medical record. It’s also pulling out all of the citations that show your evidence, this is where this is coming from, this is why this is part of the limitations for this individual. Then what we do at Workscape is we apply the ORS calculations to this RFC. I know this might be a jump scare for you guys, looking at the numbers and saying, the most populous job has 1.4 million, how is this useful to me? So I’m going to pop over to Workscape and show you that when you’re using this Chronicle, Superinsight, Workscape flow, you can pull in the RFC for a client. This is the same Arthur Miller.
When you click calculate, it’s going to show you the job number estimates here in the national column. Now, this is not a favorable look. If I’m an attorney getting this back, that’s not good news. However, all information is powerful when it comes to your case prep. What this is showing you is that you do not have enough medical evidence supporting a great RFC under ORS information. I don’t think I need to explain the value of ORS, I know that it is the hot topic right now with SSR 24-3p. Everyone’s talking about it, everyone’s teaching on it, because it is a game changer for your case strategy. Up until SSR 24-3p, the only thing you were worried about was the DOT, and I’m confident you have mastered your strategies with DOT testimony from VEs. But with the introduction of ORS with the new SSR, we’ve got to add another tool to the belt, and that’s what ORS information is. Is it going to be the most beneficial tool in every case across the board? Maybe, maybe not, but it is a tool nonetheless, particularly important if the VE is using ORS to testify. It’s also important if the VE is not using it to testify, because then it opens up a whole other Pandora’s box for cross-examination questions: why aren’t they using this data?
To illustrate how building up that medical evidence is going to be useful, the original RFC was very limited, there were only a handful of selections. If I pop over to the next profile, let’s add in SVP. Let’s add in some additional ORS factors, like no bending, no crawling, no crouching. Maybe we can only do fine manipulation frequently, gross manipulation occasionally. Can’t kneel. We have our sit-stand option allowed. Click calculate now, and let’s see what happens to the numbers. A significant reduction in job numbers based on adding those additional factors. Now, if you go back again to Profile 2, I’ll show you what happens when you add even a handful of the cognitive and mental requirements. This section of ORS is massive, because never before were cognitive and mental requirements being taken into consideration at the hearing level. There was no way to quantify that information. ORS changes that and addresses these factors. So if on this run of Arthur Miller I get evidence from his psychiatrist to support that he really should not be interacting with the public, that also is going to couple with crowds, which is a concentrated form of the public. Just adding those two additional factors from the cognitive and mental section, you can see what it does to the job number estimates.
This illustrates how knowing your medical record, having it be organized and comprehensive, and having that RFC extracted for you gives you a launch point in the hearing, so you’re not walking in empty-handed. If you run this report early, like Luke suggested, you know in advance, I really need to send my person back to the doctor, I need to gather more evidence, because these numbers are so high. It can also inform your cross-examination questions, so you know the most important and impactful factors to drill down on in your cross. We have very granular information about these ORS numbers, and in a separate demo with Workscape we can help you strategize how to use all of this information to your advantage at all stages of the hearing, during your prep, live during testimony, and on the back end. Should it not work in your favor and you need to set it up for an appeal, we can help you with that as well.
Will Yang: With that, we’re going to do a quick recap of the workflow we just saw. Nikhil will kick us off again from the ERE monitoring side, since a few folks joined a little after his presentation.
Nikhil Pai: At its core, Chronicle is all about the ERE. We automate ERE monitoring so you always know exactly what’s changing in the file at all levels, whether it’s the initial and recon level and you’re doing standard case management to get it to hearing, or at the hearing so you don’t miss any critical information in the file, whether it’s exhibited files, new medical records, earnings reports, resumes of VEs or medical experts, or any forms you need to fill out. We make you proactive rather than reactive, because we’re able to tell you the day it gets added to the ERE that it’s there. You’re no longer waiting for your case manager to check it. We keep you up to date through our notifications or our dashboard. We also make it really easy to see what the exhibits are, you can view it out of Chronicle, and you always have your dashboard with your hearing calendar. Most crucially, when you send things over to Superinsight or Workscape Analytics, you know that file is up-to-date, and you’re not going to have to redo work.
Will Yang: With that information from Chronicle, it leads us to Luke recapping what happens from that point to the RFC analysis and AI-powered chronologies.
Luke Connally: Being able to efficiently pull that information from Chronicle into the workflow of breaking down the file, thousands and thousands of pages, within a couple hours, you’re able to effectively understand what’s going on with the case, what you’re lacking, where the red flags are, and what an organized chronology of information should look like. That leads to the final product of being able to extract RFCs, which we can send over to Workscape Analytics to distill into an actual report that gives us the job numbers we can work with.
Will Yang: As Luke mentioned with those RFCs, that leads us to Workscape, sharing more about the occupational data and the cross-examination side of things.
Kristen Medina-Perez: You should not go into a hearing empty-handed, especially since the burden is now with you to challenge the VE’s testimony and challenge those faulty job number estimates. How are you supposed to do that if you don’t have your own evidence in hand? With Workscape, you’re able to use the software in the entire process, pre-hearing, live during the hearing, and post-hearing. I know there are several companies offering a lot of things on the back end, which is great, but wouldn’t you rather handle business live in the hearing to hopefully avoid having to circle back around to get a favorable decision? You can do it live in the hearing with those instant job number calculations, and again, using ORS, these numbers can and should be tailored very specifically to your client and their limitations, if you have that robust medical evidence. You know exactly how to argue it into the case in your own hypotheticals, and also develop an effective cross strategy.
Will Yang: With these three platforms, everything kicks off from Chronicle being the glue. When the ERE drops some new document, your team gets alerted, and from there that can be pushed off into the Superinsight side, where the records can be analyzed and broken down into matching the SSA listings and extracting the RFC findings. Then, with this new integration from Workscape Analytics, the attorney can enter the RFC into Workscape. So with that example Nikhil shared earlier, that Arthur Miller case shows up in Superinsight, and from Superinsight you’re able to run that Workscape Analytics report, and you see how these three platforms all connect together.
We have a special offer for today’s attendees from each respective company. From Chronicle, 14 free case monitors, if you’ve never tracked your ERE monitoring with Chronicle, you can check it out using the link in the chat. From Superinsight, there’s private beta access folks have been giving thumbs up to in the chat, and you also get $125 off your first month. And from Workscape, one free vocational case consultation and 50% off the first monthly subscription. Just mention the code ERE2VE on any of the calls with the three companies mentioned here today. And if you’re looking to get the summary document of how these three platforms talk to one another, submit your feedback in the chat for a free copy. But we’re going to move on to Q&A.
The first question is on the records and ERE side. Nikhil, what’s the most common ERE management mistake from firms that haven’t automated ERE monitoring so far?
Nikhil Pai: The most common mistake, honestly, is just being left scrambling, you’re not checking the ERE enough and you miss some important piece of information. Sometimes judges exhibit things at the last minute. Say you get a medical record and you upload it to the ERE, they process it but don’t exhibit it, and it eventually is exhibited. You now have to go rebuild your file and include that information with those exhibit numbers. If you aren’t checking the ERE enough, you miss these things, and then you’re caught the day beforehand trying to update everything at the last minute. Or the other side: you miss some form, say they agreed to do the telephone hearing, and you have to have your client submit that form back saying they agree to it. If you miss those deadlines, you’re caught scrambling. When you’re dealing with many cases, or you’re a solo and you just don’t have the time, not having that flow of information and checking the ERE can cause a lot of churn.
Will Yang: Next question, from an RFC synthesis standpoint. What’s the difference between a summary and a synthesized RFC, and why does that matter at the hearing level?
Luke Connally: That’s a good question. A summary you could imagine as more like a high-level passover of the information. What you typically see today when you think of an AI summary of records: John Doe went to Dr. Jones, presented with a right hip issue, pain level 5 out of 10. Dr. Jones gave him Tylenol, sent him home, and they’re going to follow up later. That’s more of your summary, versus a detailed breakdown, which is more like the five-step chronology, a detailed breakdown more in a SOAP format. You’re extracting more of the actual details of the appointment. Furthermore, on the RFC side, you’re getting straight to: can they lift, bend, stoop, crawl, stand, finger, all the different aspects of what we need to function in our daily activities, especially in a work environment. Which then translates objectively to actual job numbers. That’s the big difference.
Will Yang: Under SSR 24-3p, what’s the most common gap that you, Kristen, may see in how attorneys are using vocational data?
Kristen Medina-Perez: Under SSR 24-3p, attorneys are not using ORS data enough. I know there have been lots of trainings about it and lots of different opinions about the SSR in general. I know some of you are still in the camp with balled-up fists about it, super upset about how it’s impacted you and your work. However, with SSR 24-3p, it actually is beneficial because of the implementation of ORS data. You have access to control the narrative a little more, because it’s now based on the medical record explicitly. ORS covers more than 350 data points, and if you can map those to the medical record using something like the extraction of the RFC from Superinsight, then you’re going in with essentially bulletproof evidence of how and why all of these different limitations need to be included in the VE’s consideration of the job numbers.
Will Yang: Allison asked, does Workscape flag an EM-24027 REV violation during a hearing if the VE cites to a job on that list, for example, document preparer?
Kristen Medina-Perez: Those would be the DOT codes that were labeled as obsolete by Social Security and shouldn’t be cited in testimony. ORS data is based on the SOC groups, not the DOT codes, and that’s a huge shift, a huge rewiring of how things work. Under DOT testimony versus ORS testimony, ORS does not deal with DOT codes. So the short answer is no, because of that. ORS is mapped to SOC groups.
Will Yang: Aaron asked, how does Workscape Analytics compare to or differ from SkillTRAN? Most VEs will testify that they use SkillTRAN.
Kristen Medina-Perez: We differ in many ways. The most glaring one is that SkillTRAN is using DOT numbers. They are producing job number estimates down to the DOT code, which is interesting considering that BLS never published a way to do that, to assign job number estimates to DOT codes. I know that’s what’s been happening for decades, but I don’t know how those numbers are being produced. We at Workscape Analytics are using ORS data, our classification data is as new as 2025. I say ours, it’s ORS’s; we’re using ORS data. Whereas the DOT was last updated in 1991, many of which the classifications were updated in the 70s and 80s. So that’s a huge difference. Another difference is methodology. At Workscape Analytics, we’re producing job number estimates based on the methodology that BLS published on their website. It’s called the Basic Approach, and we have it linked in Workscape for easy access. There is no secret sauce, there’s no special proprietary thing we’re doing behind the scenes, so it’s a defensible, clear, published methodology.
Will Yang: A follow-up from Meredith: Workscape still has limits, correct, off-task behavior, cane usage, it factors in full-time and part-time jobs due to its use of BLS data, plus the issue with the additive percentage that ORS cautions about. Has this software been peer-reviewed?
Kristen Medina-Perez: Peer-reviewed as in, are people in the community using it? Absolutely. We have eyes on it at Workscape from Social Security representatives. We have eyes on it from people in Congress as well, Ways and Means. There are scholars who are in contact with us; articles are being written, not published yet. I’m going to be very happy on that day to share with you guys. However, it is being used in the industry, it is being accepted, and testimony is being given based off the information published by Workscape. Because it’s essentially a fancy calculator, really. All we did was build an interface for people to access the ORS data. We are not applying any proprietary anything to the numbers, we’re simply making the data accessible.
Will Yang: From the records and ERE side: what does an attorney’s case typically look like when they come to Chronicle, and what’s typically missing from their workflow?
Nikhil Pai: It often starts at the lower levels. A lot of attorneys and representatives are mainly focused on the hearing side, which has a little bit slower flow of documents, so you maybe feel like you’re scrambling a little less. But if you’re a volume practice, that can build up quickly. Where most firms actually get the most value of Chronicle immediately is at those lower levels of initial and recon, where they have a team of case managers and they’re realizing, I’ll bring on more cases, we need to start hiring people, but the economics don’t quite work out. A big part of that is it just takes a lot of legwork to keep track of those cases and open the mail. Where Chronicle really slots in is monitoring those lower-level cases, so you can proactively call your clients about forms coming in and review medical evidence as the SSA grabs it, so you can know if it’s worth appealing.
Another key reason people come to Chronicle and have a breakdown in their flow beforehand is they are using other tools, like case management systems, that don’t have open APIs and can’t easily connect. To name a few, some folks use Prevail, it’s quite common. Prevail does not have an open API so you can connect your data to Superinsight or to Workscape Analytics. So you’re missing out on a lot of these newer technologies and tools that allow you to cut down on prep time. Chronicle works in tandem, where all of your data is available in Chronicle in addition to already being put into Prevail, so you can connect these other tools and gain these edges with technology that you couldn’t before. I know moving case management systems is very difficult, I don’t advocate you take that on in a weekend; it takes months of planning. So having Chronicle as that additional layer of API connection to other tools is another reason people come to Chronicle and fix their workflows.
Will Yang: From the RFC synthesis side, how does the source citation layer change what an attorney can do with the RFC at the VE table?
Luke Connally: I don’t have to preach to the choir. I’ve never been in a hearing, but I hear enough from the advocates that the judge only cares about where’s it at in the file. So if you can’t cite to it, then you’re going to have a hard time arguing your position, or the position of your client. So I would say that’s pretty critical.
Kristen Medina-Perez: To add on, we really encourage attorneys to take advantage of their opportunity to propose their own hypotheticals in the hearing. If you have those citations in the medical record to the factors you want included in the VE’s testimony and their job number calculations, having the citation is very powerful, because you have the support you need to advocate for its inclusion in the calculation.
Will Yang: This is a cross-the-workflow question for all three speakers: if a firm only uses one or two of these tools, where’s the prep going to break down?
Nikhil Pai: If you’re not using Chronicle, where this breaks down is you still have to manually get the files, upload them to Superinsight, and stay on top of what’s changing, so you lose out on having your files constantly updated. As Luke mentioned, you get a couple free refreshes through Superinsight, so if you want to constantly monitor the case, you’re going to miss out on that because you already just have that one download you did 60 days out, and you don’t come back to it until 5 days later. You’re losing time you could have been proactively changing your strategy based on new information.
Kristen Medina-Perez: From the Workscape perspective, our platform begins with the RFC checklist. If you do not have a clear RFC that you’re working with, you’re halted before you can even get going. Having Superinsight extract that RFC on your behalf gives you that starting point to then develop a strategy based on the job numbers.
Will Yang: A question from Lori: can the speakers share in general the fee structures associated with each of these products, and whether there are any price breaks for using all three?
Nikhil Pai: Chronicle starts at $9 per case for the lifetime of the case. To have these integrations, you do need to be on our Pro plan, which is $14 per case for the lifetime of the case. That’s a one-time fee, if the case gets remanded three times, it’s still just that one fee.
Luke Connally: Michelle just shared the Superinsight pricing page. On the high end, if you’re a user who wants to use Superinsight occasionally with these reports, it can cost as little as $80 for one of these RFC reports, or $160 for one of these five-step reviews with chronologies. But if you have higher volume, that price significantly drops and can cut drastically, depending on the volume you have. It gives you the option and flexibility to go up and down to different tiers in the pricing schedule. As the advocate, as you have more or fewer hearings coming up, you’re not on the hook for significant cost based on whether you have something you need to run a report on. We have both annual and monthly options, as well as the on-demand schedule.
Kristen Medina-Perez: For Workscape, we are subscription-based. We offer a basic plan, which covers the top 100 SOC codes, and those are the results we’ll return to you based on calculations. Then we have our premium subscription, which returns results on all 460 SOC codes. The premium platform also has the advanced reporting I mentioned. Most of our attorney clients prefer the premium subscription, which starts at $178 per month. You get significant discounts if you subscribe annually. We also have special discount codes for those of you who are NOSSCR members. It is not a per-run fee; it’s subscription-based, so you can do as many calculations and handle as many cases as you’d like throughout the month.
Will Yang: Lori had another question: what are the advantages to using Superinsight for medical summaries, compared to medical chronologies done elsewhere?
Luke Connally: I’ll start by saying you’ll soon have the option, in the near future, for a Superinsight summary on Chronicle. I can only speak to ours, so I’ll do that. We have quality summaries of the information that also include a curated section of the report with imaging results, and a curated section with severe conditions listed from a summary perspective. That is a separate report than our gold-standard report, which is the five-step review with chronology. That’s basically two reports in one, you get the five-step walkthrough for pre-hearing prep, and you also get a chronology to go with it.
Nikhil Pai: I’d just say, definitely check Superinsight out. I think trying is the best way to know the differences, so I’d suggest always giving everyone a shot. Everyone has different opinions and different reasons to like different medical chronologies, and I do think they have a really good product.
Luke Connally: Good feedback. The first case is on us, guys, so if you haven’t used Superinsight, or it’s been a couple years, come on down, we’ll spot you one.
Will Yang: I think we have tackled all of the questions in the chat today, so thank you so much to everybody who added a question. If you haven’t already checked out the chat, I’m going to post it one last time. If you’re looking for the freebie, just the takeaways from what all three of these platforms do together in this workflow, submit the feedback, and you’ll get a link at the end with the takeaways from today’s session. And if you want to take advantage of any of the offers today, the key code is ERE2VE to mention to any of these three teams.
Thank you so much to Luke, Kristen, and Nikhil for sharing this workflow. Hopefully folks find a lot of value out of it, and we’ll catch you next time for the next session in Advancing Technology in Disability Law. We have another workshop in a few weeks on how to build up the referral program in your practice, so hope to see you there in the start of June. Thanks, everybody, have a great rest of your day.
Nikhil Pai: Thanks, guys.
Luke Connally: Thank you.