Personal injury case screening is the accept or decline review a firm runs before it signs a client: it tests liability, damages, insurance coverage, the statute of limitations, causation, client credibility and conflicts, then scores the case against the firm’s own thresholds. Screening sits inside personal injury intake, and it’s the step that decides whether intake ends in a signed retainer or a decline letter.
EvenUp supports the intake case analysis that follows once a file has records, with tools that summarize case files, flag missing records and treatment gaps, and surface weaknesses an adjuster will raise.
A declined case costs the firm a phone call. A weak case signed on contingency can cost months of staff time and advanced costs before anyone admits it won’t pay. A written screen makes the decision repeatable, so two intake specialists looking at the same facts reach the same answer.
Get a real-world look at how PI firms are putting AI to work across the full case lifecycle, including intake, medical management, litigation, and settlement strategy.
Watch Now
Personal injury case screening is the firm’s decision on whether a potential case meets its standards for liability, recoverable damages and collectability. It happens after the first intake conversation and before the retainer, and it ends in one of three outcomes: accept, decline or hold for more facts.
Screening is easy to confuse with the jobs on either side of it. The table separates them.
| Job | When It Happens | Question It Answers | Typical Owner | Output |
| Intake | First contact | Who is this person and what happened? | Intake specialist | Contact record and incident facts |
| Screening | Before the retainer | Should the firm take this case? | Attorney or intake lead | Accept, decline or hold |
| Re-screening | As records arrive | Do the new facts change the decision? | Case manager and attorney | Continue, adjust strategy or withdraw |
| Valuation | Before the demand | What is the case worth? | Attorney | Demand strategy |
Valuation gets its own treatment in our guide on how to calculate personal injury settlement value. At screening, the firm needs a rough sense of value only to decide whether the case clears its floor.
Most firms screen on seven criteria. Each one can sink a case on its own, so the screen checks all seven before anyone scores the file.
Liability questions often need early investigation. Our guide on streamlining policy limit investigations and liability tracing covers how firms find every responsible party and policy.
Firms should consider checking both before scoring anything else, because either one can end the screen. A missed deadline can’t be fixed, and a conflict can disqualify the firm.
Every state sets its own deadlines, and the clock can depend on the claim type, the defendant and the client. California’s general deadline for personal injury is two years under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1, as the Santa Clara County Superior Court’s statute of limitations table lists. The same table shows a much shorter path for claims against a public entity: the claim generally goes to the entity within six months. Other states set different periods, and tolling rules for minors, discovery of the injury and other situations vary.
Record three dates at screening:
For a view of how long each stage takes once a case is signed, see our guide to personal injury claim timelines.
A person who consults the firm about a possible case is a prospective client, and ABA Model Rule 1.18 limits how the firm can use what that person shares, even if the firm declines. The rule also explains when information from a prospective client can disqualify the firm from representing someone on the other side.
You can run the conflict check on the client, the other driver or property owner, the insurer’s insured and any business involved before the intake call goes deep into the facts. Your state’s version of the rule controls.
The next evolution of legal AI goes beyond drafting documents and answering questions. AI agents can now learn how your firm works, execute repeatable workflows, and take action across multiple cases simultaneously, without constant prompting.
Watch Now
Score each criterion on a fixed scale, mark the criteria that can end a case on their own and set an acceptance threshold the whole firm uses. The rubric below is illustrative. Adjust the weights to your practice areas and case mix.
| Criterion | 0 Points | 1 Point | 2 Points | Knockout? |
| Liability | Client likely at fault | Disputed or shared fault | Clear fault by another party | Yes, at 0 |
| Damages | No treatment, minor symptoms | Ongoing conservative care | Surgery, imaging findings or lasting impairment | No |
| Coverage | No known coverage or assets | Minimum limits only | Adequate limits or multiple policies | Yes, at 0 |
| Statute of limitations | Expired | Less than 90 days left | Ample time | Yes, at 0 |
| Causation | Major prior injury to same area | Some prior history or delayed care | Clean history, prompt treatment | No |
| Client credibility | Account conflicts with records | Minor inconsistencies | Consistent and documented | No |
| Conflicts | Unresolved conflict | Waivable conflict | No conflict | Yes, at 0 |
In this illustrative version, a case that hits any knockout is declined. A case that clears the knockouts and scores 10 or more out of 14 is accepted. A score of 7 to 9 goes to attorney review. Anything lower is declined. Consistency is the point. When every intake specialist applies the same rubric, the firm can see which criteria predict its best and worst cases over time.
A firm that signs cases it can’t move creates its own backlog. Our guide to personal injury firm bottlenecks covers how weak files slow everything behind them.
Decline in writing, promptly and in plain language. A non-engagement letter confirms there’s no attorney-client relationship and tells the person that time limits apply to their claim. It’s the firm’s record that it declined, and it’s the person’s signal to keep looking for a lawyer.
Consider the following five criteria for a decline letter:
Keep the letter short and send it by a method that creates a record, such as email with the screening notes attached to the firm’s file. The duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.18 still applies to what the person shared, so limit internal access to the screening notes. Wording requirements and best practices vary by state, so have the firm’s malpractice carrier or ethics counsel approve the template.
Re-screen whenever new facts could change the original decision. The first screen relies on what the client says. The medical records, the carrier’s coverage answer and the client’s treatment pattern either confirm that account or change it.
Five triggers should send a file back through the screen:
A medical chronology is the fastest way to see whether the records support the client’s story, because it puts every visit, diagnosis and prior condition on one timeline. Treatment patterns matter as much as diagnoses: our guide to how treatment gaps reduce personal injury settlements explains why a break in care becomes a carrier’s first argument.
EvenUp’s Case and Negotiation Preparation flags missing medical bills and records, shows treatment gaps on a care timeline, tracks treatment costs against policy limits and identifies weaknesses such as negative diagnostics and prior incidents. A re-screen built on that view is faster than one built on a stack of raw records. Re-screening ends in one of three decisions: continue as planned, change the case strategy or withdraw under the rules of professional conduct in your state.
Case analysis software reads a case file and tells the firm what’s in it: injuries, treatment, costs, gaps, prior history and the arguments the other side is likely to make. For screening, it’s most useful once records exist, at re-screen and before the demand.
Check five things before you rely on any case analysis tool:
EvenUp’s Companion answers questions about a case with line-level citations to the records, summarizes documents and identifies likely adjuster arguments. Across the caseload, it flags cases falling behind on treatment or approaching the statute of limitations, using the firm’s CMS data. MedChrons turns the records into a searchable timeline and identifies prior treatment and history that may affect causation.
Good screening is a written standard that every person at intake applies the same way. Check the statute of limitations and conflicts first, score the seven criteria, decline in writing and record why. Then treat the decision as provisional. The records, the carrier and the client’s treatment will test the first screen, and the firms that re-screen on those triggers spend less time on cases that were never going to pay.
Schedule a call to see how EvenUp helps your team analyze case files once records arrive.
Schedule a call today to see how EvenUp’s AI tools automate repetitive tasks, streamline custom drafting, and empower staff to focus on case strategy and client engagement.
Schedule Call
Personal injury case evaluation is the review a firm runs to decide whether to take a case and how strong it is. It tests liability, damages, insurance coverage, the statute of limitations, causation, client credibility and conflicts. Firms often call the first pass screening and the later, records-based review case analysis.
Case analysis software reads the documents in a PI file and reports what they show: injuries, treatment, costs, gaps, prior history and likely defense arguments. The best tools cite the source page for every fact. It’s most useful once medical records are in the file.
The most common reasons are unclear liability, no collectable insurance coverage, minor injuries with little treatment, an expired or nearly expired deadline and a conflict of interest. Many firms also decline when the client’s account conflicts with the records. Each firm sets its own thresholds.
It should say the firm won’t represent the person, warn that a deadline applies to the claim without estimating the date, recommend speaking with another lawyer promptly and give no opinion on the merits. Requirements vary by state, so have ethics counsel or the firm’s malpractice carrier approve the template.
Re-screen when new facts could change the decision: prior injuries in the records, a liability denial, lower-than-expected policy limits, treatment gaps, negative imaging or a change in the client’s account. A medical chronology makes most of these visible on one timeline.
