Abdulex works inside your case management system as an authorized partner — handling medical records, chronologies, settlement packages, and more, so your attorneys never lose momentum.
Records requests sit open for weeks with no follow-up and no visibility.
Your paralegal spends hours on the phone instead of building settlement packages.
Chronologies and demand letters get delayed because intake never closes the loop.
From the first authorization to the final demand letter, Abdulex manages the entire records and documentation pipeline inside your existing systems — no new software, no learning curve.
We submit, follow up, and track requests directly in your CMS. No fax limbo. No silent drops.
Structured, attorney-ready timelines that map every treatment event to your theory of the case.
Complete demand packages with narrative summaries, liability support, and damages breakdown.
We identify, log, and monitor all outstanding liens so nothing surprises your client at disbursement.
Scheduling, records prep, and confirmations — your clients show up ready, every time.
We prepare, send, and track signed authorizations across every provider on the case.
"We're not a vendor you send requests to. We're the paralegal already inside your case, already in your system, already moving."— Abdulaziz Djalilov, Founder, Abdulex
Most records companies are portals you submit to and wait. Abdulex is the opposite — we work inside your system, actively managing every request until it closes.
| Feature | Abdulex | Traditional Vendors |
|---|---|---|
| Works inside your CMS as a named user | Yes | No |
| Active provider follow-up (calls & faxes) | Yes | Rarely |
| Real-time status visible in your CMS | Yes | Separate portal |
| Chronologies & settlement packages included | Yes | Records only |
| Flat per-matter pricing | Yes | Per-page fees |
| Dedicated point of contact | Yes | Support ticket |
| No long-term contract required | Yes | Often required |
34 open records requests with no active follow-up system. Attorneys were regularly pulling case files to check status themselves — taking time away from depositions, hearings, and client communication. Chronologies were being drafted in-house, tying up the one paralegal for days at a time. Settlement package preparation was a bottleneck on every closing matter.
Abdulex was added as a named user in Filevine. All 34 open requests were inventoried and actively followed up within 72 hours. Incoming matters were assigned same-day. Chronologies and settlement packages moved to Abdulex.
Abdulex cut our records backlog in half within the first month. They work directly in Filevine and I don't have to chase anyone — it just gets done.
The chronologies come back formatted exactly the way we need them. Our attorneys can go straight from receipt to demand letter preparation.
We tried a few records vendors. None of them worked inside our system. Abdulex was the first partner that felt like an actual extension of our team.
We request an authorized login to your Filevine, Clio, MyCase, CloudLex, or other platform. We work inside your system — not a parallel one. Your team always sees exactly what we see.
New cases are flagged to us directly. We pull the case details, identify the records needed, and open requests within 24 hours of assignment.
We don't wait for records to arrive. We call, fax, and escalate until the file is complete. Every contact is logged in your system in real time.
Chronologies, settlement packages, and lien logs are uploaded and organized inside your CMS — formatted to your firm's standards.
Solo and small PI firms — the 1–10 attorney practices where every paralegal hour matters and there's no room for a dedicated records department. We become that department.
New York City · Long Island · Tri-State Area · Nationally for remote-capable matters
These aren't add-ons. They're the baseline of how we work — because anything less wouldn't actually solve your problem.
You work with one person, not a support ticket queue. Your contact knows your firm, your formats, and your preferences.
Every new matter assigned to us is acknowledged the same business day. You never wonder if we received it.
A concise weekly summary of all open matters — what's pending, what's arrived, and what's been escalated — logged directly in your CMS.
We provide a signed Business Associate Agreement before any PHI is handled. HIPAA compliance isn't optional — it's the starting point.
Chronologies and packages are formatted to match your firm's templates and uploaded into your case folder — not emailed as attachments.
Once complete records are received, your chronology is delivered within 48 hours — no queues, no back-and-forth.
All matters are handled under strict HIPAA-compliant procedures. We sign your firm's Business Associate Agreement before any protected health information is accessed, transmitted, or stored. If you need a BAA before the first call, we'll have it to you within 24 hours.
No lengthy onboarding. No new software. We plug into what you already have.
Fill out the contact form or book a call directly. We respond within one business day.
A 20-minute call to understand your volume, CMS, and workflow. No pitch — just listening.
You add us as a named user. We handle setup from there — no IT involvement needed.
We take on your first case within 24 hours. Most firms see results before end of week one.
Most firms we speak with have at least 15–20 matters with open records requests and no dedicated follow-up system. A single call is enough to identify where time is being lost — and whether Abdulex is the right fit.
No commitment. No sales script. Just a direct conversation about your workflow.
Volume retainers available for firms with 10+ active matters/month. Contact us to discuss.
All five boroughs. Fully embedded, in-person availability on request. Filings, hearings, and court deadlines understood.
Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, New Jersey, and Connecticut firms served with the same turnaround and CMS access model.
For firms outside the metro area, we handle all records retrieval, chronologies, and settlement packages remotely through your CMS. No geographic limit on what we can manage.
Abdulex wasn't built from the outside looking in. Before founding this firm, I spent years managing medical records workflows inside a personal injury practice — submitting authorizations, following up with providers, tracking open requests, building chronologies, and preparing settlement packages. I did the work that most firms are trying to delegate but can't find reliable help for.
What I saw, over and over, was that the records process wasn't failing because attorneys didn't care. It was failing because nobody owned it end-to-end. Requests went out and then nothing happened until someone noticed. Follow-up was reactive. Chronologies got done whenever the paralegal had time between everything else.
Abdulex exists to own that process completely — not as a portal you submit requests to, but as a team member inside your system who never lets a matter go quiet. The reason we ask for CMS access isn't a gimmick. It's the only way to actually do this right.
If you want to talk through your current setup, I'm always available for a direct conversation. No sales process. Just two professionals figuring out if there's a fit.
A one-page reference for every new PI matter — covering what to request, who to request it from, and what to watch for. Used internally at Abdulex on every case.
This checklist covers the 15 steps we run through on every new PI matter — from initial intake to first follow-up. It's format-agnostic, so it works whether your firm uses Filevine, Clio, or a spreadsheet.
Enter your name and email and we'll send it directly to your inbox. No spam, no sequences — just the checklist.
We'll email this once. Your information is never shared.
A strong chronology does more than list dates. It connects treatment to mechanism of injury, flags gaps, and gives your attorney a narrative they can use in demand and at deposition.
Most people think a medical chronology is a timeline — a list of dates, providers, and visit summaries. That's the minimum. A chronology that actually serves your case does three things the basic version doesn't: it connects each treatment event to the mechanism of injury, it flags gaps that opposing counsel will exploit, and it builds a factual narrative your attorney can take directly into demand drafting or deposition prep.
If your chronology is just a date-ordered list, you're leaving work on the table. Here's what to look for instead.
Every entry in the chronology should trace back to the accident or incident. That means documenting not just what treatment occurred, but whether the provider documented causation — and noting explicitly when they didn't. "Patient presented with lumbar pain" is useless without context. "Patient presented with lumbar pain; treating physician documented onset consistent with MVA of [date]" is what builds your damages narrative.
When causation isn't documented, that gap belongs in the chronology too — flagged for follow-up or addressed in the demand letter with supporting literature or expert context.
Defense attorneys and adjusters look for treatment gaps above almost everything else. A six-week gap between visits will be used to argue the injury resolved. Your chronology should surface these gaps explicitly — not just leave them implied by the dates — so your attorney can address them proactively. Common causes of legitimate gaps (insurance denials, waitlists, transportation issues) should be noted and documented before the demand goes out.
The chronology will be read by your attorney, reviewed by an adjuster, and potentially handed to an expert. It should be clean, consistent, and formatted so a reader can find any date or provider within seconds. Color coding by provider or treatment type, a summary header, and a separate section for outstanding records all add functional value — not just aesthetics.
Delayed records, incomplete files, and missed lien notices are silent settlement killers. Here's how to identify the friction points before they hit your bottom line.
Most PI firms know their records process isn't perfect. What they don't always recognize is how directly that imperfection translates into lower settlements, delayed closings, and paralegal burnout. Here are five signs the problem is worse than you think.
If the only reason records get followed up on is because a paralegal remembered to call, you don't have a process — you have a person holding everything together. When that person is out, on trial, or just busy, the queue goes silent. Records that should take four weeks take twelve. The fix isn't hiring another paralegal; it's separating follow-up from everything else so it runs on its own cadence regardless of who's in the office.
If an attorney has to open a case and read through the notes to know whether records have been received, the firm has no operational visibility. Every open matter should have a status that's readable in under ten seconds — either in the CMS task view or a tracker attached to the file. If it's not there, requests are falling through the cracks.
This is the most direct settlement killer. When the demand is ready but the file isn't complete, the case sits. Adjusters move on. Statute pressure builds. Every week a demand is delayed because of missing records is a week of leverage lost. If this is happening more than occasionally in your firm, the records intake process — not the demand drafting — is the bottleneck.
Medicare, Medicaid, and health insurance liens don't announce themselves. If your firm has ever reached the distribution stage and discovered a lien that wasn't tracked, it means lien identification isn't happening at intake — it's happening at the end when there's no time to negotiate. The fix is a lien check built into intake, not something that happens after the settlement is final.
Not by the end of the day. Not after checking the file. Right now, in under a minute. If that's not possible, the records process has no real infrastructure — it's reactive, not managed. Firms that close cases faster and settle higher are the ones where every open request has a status, a follow-up date, and someone responsible for it. That's not a staffing question; it's a systems question.
The difference between a vendor and a partner is visibility. When your support team works inside your system, nothing falls through the cracks — because they see everything you see.
The traditional records vendor model works like this: your firm submits a request through a portal, pays a fee, and waits. Status updates come from a dashboard you have to log into separately. When something goes wrong — a provider rejects the authorization, a request gets lost, a record is incomplete — you find out when you go looking for it, not when it happens.
For a high-volume PI practice, this model creates a fundamental problem: the person responsible for knowing what's missing is your paralegal, who is also responsible for everything else. Records become something that gets checked on when there's time, not something that's actively managed.
When a litigation support partner works inside your CMS as a named user, the dynamic inverts. Instead of your team checking a portal, the support partner is watching the file in real time. Status is logged where your attorney looks — in the matter, not in a separate system. When a request stalls, the support partner escalates without being asked. When a record arrives incomplete, it's flagged before it becomes a problem at demand drafting.
The operational effect is significant: the average time from request to receipt drops, your paralegal's attention moves to higher-value work, and your attorney gets to demand faster because the file is actually ready when they need it.
The reason embedded support outperforms vendors isn't speed alone — it's that the support partner can see context a vendor portal never can. They can see the deposition scheduled in three weeks. They can see the demand letter being drafted. They can see that two providers have been requested but one hasn't responded, and they can escalate that one specifically because they know it's the imaging that's missing from a case going to demand next month.
Vendors work with information you give them. Embedded partners work with the full picture of your case, which means they can prioritize correctly without being managed.
This is the most common hesitation, and it's worth addressing directly. Adding a named user to Filevine, Clio, or MyCase is the same action you'd take for any contractor or temp paralegal. Access is scoped, logged, and revocable at any time. The question isn't whether it's safe to give access — it's whether the operational benefit justifies it. For firms that have made the switch, the answer is consistently yes.
Most firms we speak with have at least 15–20 matters with open records requests and no dedicated follow-up system. A single call is usually enough to show you where time is being lost.
We respond to all inquiries within one business day.
We respond within one business day · All inquiries are confidential