What every letter promises

Appeals that hold up under review.

Strata drafts California workers’ comp appeals, and every one keeps the four promises on this page: the guideline it cites, the studies it quotes, the law it argues, and the PHI it protects.

See My First Appeal

See example letters →

MTUS-cited, every time: Every argument names the guideline section it rests on, so the letter holds up under utilization review.
Peer-reviewed, word for word: Every study Strata quotes is peer-reviewed and drawn from PubMed Central, the National Library of Medicine's open archive. Each quote reaches the letter word for word, with its citation.
Built for California workers' comp: MTUS, ODG, and the Labor Code patterns reviewers use to deny cold compression, rather than a general tool bent to fit.
PHI handled with care: Every document is treated as protected health information from upload to signature: encrypted the whole way through, access-controlled, and covered by a signed BAA with every customer.

Security and compliance.

Encrypted in transit and at rest
US-based AWS infrastructure
Audit logging retained 7 years
Invite-only access
HIPAA compliant
A signed BAA with every customer

A deeper look into the product.

Read down the page and every promise above gets pinned to the proof behind it.This is the letter Strata drafts: a demo case, staged to show how it works. Read down the page and every promise above gets pinned to the line of the letter that proves it.

See example letters →

3 citations · 3 verified

Cedar Valley Orthopedic Medical Group

Physical Medicine & DME · California

June 24, 2026

Re: Appeal of Utilization Review Non-Certification
Claim No. WC-2026-041832 · DOI 03/14/2026
Patient: J. Ramos · DOB 04/12/1981
Requested service: continued authorization, cold compression therapy unit and wrap

Dear Claims Administrator:

We write to appeal the utilization review non-certification dated June 2, 2026, denying continued authorization of the cold compression unit supplied following the patient’s total knee arthroplasty.

Under Labor Code §4604.5(a), the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule is presumptively correct on the issue of extent and scope of medical treatment, and 8 CCR §9792.21 gives that schedule regulatory force. The reviewer’s stated rationale does not rebut that presumption; it does not engage the applicable guideline at all.

The clinical literature is consistent: “A cryopneumatic device used after TKA appeared to decrease the need for narcotic medication from hospital discharge to 2 weeks post-operatively.” (Su et al., 2012). The requested device is the guideline-concordant, lower-risk alternative to extended opioid analgesia.

We respectfully request that the non-certification be reversed and the requested service authorized.

Sincerely,

Ready to sign

A. Mercer, M.D.
Treating physician

Demo case · fabricated patient data · exports as DOCX + PDF

01Verified

Checked character-for-character.

Every quote in every letter is matched verbatim against its source in the curated bibliography, at the moment the letter is generated. The sources are peer-reviewed studies on PubMed Central, the National Library of Medicine’s archive, and every passage reaches the letter exactly as published.

Letter“A cryopneumatic device used after TKA appeared to decrease the need for narcotic medication from hospital discharge to 2 weeks post-operatively.”

Sourcebibliography_v1.1.json · su_2012_cryopneumatic_device_total_knee_arthroplasty · p2
“A cryopneumatic device used after TKA appeared to decrease the need for narcotic medication from hospital discharge to 2 weeks post-operatively.”

Match · character-exact

02California

Fluent in the doctrine reviewers apply.

Strata argues in California workers’ comp law: the MTUS presumption, the utilization-review standard, and the regulations that give the guidelines force. It was built for DME appeals, not adapted for them.

LAB §4604.5(a)MTUS presumption of correctness

LAB §4610(g)utilization-review standard

LAB §4610.5-.6independent medical review procedure

8 CCR §9792.20-27MTUS as binding regulation

03Protected

PHI handled with care.

The letter carries protected health information and is treated that way at every step: encrypted from upload to export, in systems only your organization can enter.

At restEncrypted, dedicated key per bucket

In transitEncrypted, edge to database

LogsZero PHI, application or model

04Signed

A physician signs every letter.

The draft lands editable, as DOCX and PDF, and the treating physician reviews and signs it before anything is sent. Strata never submits on its own.

DOCX · editablePDF · ready to sendPhysician-signed

How it works

Three steps, no blank page.

You never start from nothing. The denial arrives, the argument is built, and a signable draft is waiting. The only writing left is yours.

01
Drop the denial
Upload the denial PDF, up to 25 MB. Strata parses the requested service, date of injury, claim number, and the reviewer's stated rationale.
02
Strata builds the argument
The denial is matched to the MTUS guidelines it should have engaged, the supporting evidence is pulled from the verified library, and a procedural rebuttal takes shape instead of a form letter.
03
You review, the physician signs
A compliant letter lands ready to edit. Tighten a sentence if you want, export DOCX or PDF, collect the signature, send.

Stopwritingappeals.
Startoverturningthem.

Reach out, sign the BAA, and your first denial comes back as a letter you can judge for yourself.

See My First Appeal

See example letters

HIPAA-compliantSigned BAAUS-only infrastructure

Security and compliance.

Checked character-for-character.

Fluent in the doctrine reviewers apply.

PHI handled with care.

A physician signs every letter.

Drop the denial

Strata builds the argument

You review, the physician signs

Stopwritingappeals.Startoverturningthem.

Stopwritingappeals.
Startoverturningthem.