InQuery Reviews 2026
For plaintiff law firms handling personal injury, medical malpractice, and mass tort cases, medical record retrieval and review are persistent operational bottlenecks. InQuery has emerged as one option in this space, offering AI-powered medical record review, source-linked chronologies, and a managed retrieval service. This analysis looks at what InQuery currently advertises and how it compares to Codes Health, a platform built around retrieval, authorization validation, and plaintiff-specific AI analysis in a single workflow.
Key Takeaways
InQuery does more than review: Alongside chronology generation, it now advertises a managed retrieval service covering provider identification, authorization management, follow-up, indexing, deduplication, and missing-record flagging.
Source-linked citations are a core strength: Chronology entries tie to a specific page and Bates number, which supports litigation defensibility.
Pricing is not published consistently: InQuery's own materials reference per-chronology, volume subscription, custom, and page-based models, so buyers should request a current quote.
SOC 2 status matters: InQuery states it holds a SOC 2 Type I attestation and is working toward Type II.
Codes Health differentiates on specific features: AI authorization error checking before submission, breach-of-care flagging, and future medical expense extraction are documented for Codes Health, and were not found in InQuery's current public product documentation.
Flat-fee pricing: Codes Health prices on a flat fee, which removes per-page uncertainty for contingency-fee practices.
Native Filevine integration: Codes Health embeds retrieval directly in case files rather than working through an API alone.
What is InQuery?
InQuery is an AI-powered platform that turns medical records into organized chronologies and summaries for legal and insurance professionals. Founded in 2023, the company participated in Y Combinator's Winter 2024 batch and is listed with a team of four. Its site identifies backing from Y Combinator, Amino Health, General Catalyst, and DRW Venture Capital.
InQuery currently states that it has processed more than 1 million pages. It serves both legal practices and insurance carriers, positioning itself as a dual-market platform.
Why Reviews Matter for Legal Teams
Before selecting any medical record platform, litigation teams should evaluate:
Retrieval depth: Which channels does the retrieval service actually reach?
Plaintiff-specific AI features: Breach-of-care flagging, future medical expense extraction, and pre-existing condition identification matter for case valuation
Authorization validation: Incomplete authorizations are a leading preventable cause of denied requests, and pre-submission checking avoids weeks of delay
Completeness verification: Missing records discovered at trial are a preventable failure
Pricing predictability: Usage-based models create budget uncertainty for contingency practices
InQuery's Record Review and Chronology Generation
InQuery's core offering centers on turning medical records into organized, source-linked chronologies.
Source-Linked Citations
Every chronology entry and extracted fact ties to a specific source page and Bates number. That architecture supports litigation defensibility by letting attorneys verify AI-generated summaries against the original documentation.
Human QA
InQuery advertises a human QA layer for its chronology and review services. Some of its public materials describe that review as mandatory or built in, while older comparison content describes human QA as included or optional. Firms should confirm the current scope in writing.
Document Processing
The platform handles standard document work:
OCR for scanned records
Duplicate detection at the page level
Organization by date, provider, and document type
Export to PDF, DOCX, and CSV formats
InQuery's own materials describe AI-assisted review of a moderately complex personal injury case of roughly 3,000 to 5,000 pages taking 2 to 6 hours of platform processing, plus additional attorney review time. Its demo page separately says uploaded documents can be processed and returned same-day, without specifying page volume.
InQuery's Retrieval Service
InQuery maintains a dedicated record retrieval service. According to its service page, the workflow covers:
Identifying providers and record sources
Preparing and managing HIPAA-compliant authorizations and requests
Tracking outstanding requests and following up until records arrive
Retrieving medical records, bills, imaging, and related documents
Returning an indexed, deduplicated file with missing records flagged
InQuery also advertises missing-record and documentation-gap detection across its product, retrieval, and summarization pages, and its summarization service includes a missing records and gap list. Its homepage displays "Gap in Treatment" as one of the findings the platform surfaces, and its summarization page says it surfaces prior conditions and pre-existing treatment history.
Codes Health brands its own completeness workflow as Missing Record Review, which cross-references returned materials against the original request and known patient history before delivery.
Integration Approach
InQuery states that it offers REST-based integration with claims platforms, though its main product pages do not provide detailed public API documentation. Integration typically requires development work, which suits firms with technical resources.
Codes Health takes a different approach with native Filevine integration, embedding retrieval requests, status tracking, and record delivery directly inside case files rather than requiring a separate portal or manual uploads. For high-volume firms, Codes Health also builds custom integrations with CRM platforms and other medical software.
Security Compliance
InQuery's security page states that it maintains a SOC 2 Type I attestation and is actively progressing toward SOC 2 Type II. It describes itself as HIPAA compliant and states that it signs Business Associate Agreements. Firms with a SOC 2 Type II requirement in their vendor policy should confirm current status directly before contracting.
AI-Powered Case Chronologies: Capabilities and Limits
What InQuery Delivers
InQuery's AI pipeline generates chronological case summaries that organize medical encounters, treatments, and diagnoses, with source linking on every extracted fact.
Where General AI Falls Short
General AI platforms like ChatGPT are not designed for litigation-grade medical record review. Legal workflows require HIPAA-compliant data handling, citation to specific pages and Bates numbers, verification against medical terminology standards, and an understanding of what litigation actually needs from a record set. Codes Health's AI platform is purpose-built for this work and analyzes medical records with high precision, with medical and legal reviewers verifying the output before it reaches your team.
Plaintiff-Specific Analysis
For personal injury and medical malpractice attorneys, case valuation depends on a narrower set of outputs. Two were not found in InQuery's current public product documentation:
Breach-of-care flagging: Surfacing potential departures from standards of care for attorney and expert review
Future medical expense extraction: Pulling documented projected treatment costs out of provider notes
Both are documented Codes Health capabilities. Firms that need them from InQuery should ask directly rather than assume from the marketing pages.
Pre-existing condition identification and treatment-gap analysis are a different matter. InQuery advertises both, so these should not be treated as points of difference. What was not found in InQuery's first-party materials is specific missed-appointment tracking, which is narrower than treatment-gap analysis generally.
Who Benefits from InQuery?
Market Position
InQuery serves both legal practices and insurance carriers, operating across the plaintiff-defense divide. That dual-market approach may appeal to firms working both sides or wanting a single vendor relationship, though it also means the product is not built exclusively around plaintiff case-building.
Best Fit Scenarios
Consider InQuery when:
You primarily need source-linked chronology generation with page and Bates traceability
You serve both plaintiff and defense or insurance markets
API integration meets your workflow needs and you have the technical resources to build it
You are comfortable negotiating a pricing model rather than working from a published rate
A SOC 2 Type I attestation satisfies your vendor requirements
Where Plaintiff Firms May Want More
Plaintiff litigation teams may find gaps when:
Authorization rejections cause delays: Pre-submission AI error detection for misspellings, missing dates of service, and signature issues was not found in InQuery's documentation
Case valuation depends on liability analysis: Breach-of-care flagging and future medical expense extraction were not found in its current public product pages
Budget predictability matters: Without a published rate, contingency practices cannot model cost per case in advance
InQuery and Codes Health: A Feature Comparison
Both platforms now cover retrieval, chronology generation, missing-record detection, and human review, so the useful comparison is narrower than it was a year ago.
Retrieval coverage
InQuery: Managed retrieval with provider identification, authorization management, follow-up, indexing, deduplication, and missing-record flagging
Codes Health: Multi-channel retrieval through claims clearinghouses, custodian integrations, proprietary provider networks, patient portals, fax, email, and phone
Authorization validation
InQuery: Authorization preparation and management; pre-submission AI error detection not found in public documentation
Codes Health: AI review before submission that flags misspellings, missing dates of service, signature issues, and provider-specific requirements
Completeness verification
InQuery: Missing-record and gap identification, with a missing records and gap list in summarization output
Codes Health: Missing Record Review against the original request and known patient history before delivery
Plaintiff-specific analysis
InQuery: Prior conditions and pre-existing treatment history; treatment-gap findings
Codes Health: Breach-of-care flagging for attorney and expert review, future medical expense extraction, pre-existing condition surfacing
Case management integration
InQuery: REST-based integration, detailed public API documentation not available
Codes Health: Native Filevine embedding, plus custom CRM and medical software integrations for high-volume firms
Security
InQuery: SOC 2 Type I attestation, progressing toward Type II; HIPAA compliant; BAAs
Codes Health: HIPAA compliant with AES-256 at rest, TLS 1.2 or higher in transit, role-based permissions, full audit trails, and BAAs
Pricing
InQuery: No single published price; per-chronology, volume subscription, custom, and page-based models all appear in its own materials
Codes Health: Flat fee, with specific pricing not publicly disclosed
Retrieval Timeline
Retrieval timelines vary by provider, request pathway, and vendor, and complex requests can take weeks or longer. Under HIPAA's individual right-of-access rule, covered entities generally must act on qualifying access requests within 30 calendar days, with one additional 30-day extension in limited circumstances. HHS treats 30 days as an outer limit rather than a normal turnaround, and other authorization-based pathways follow different federal or state timelines.
Codes Health says it works toward complete records in a couple of weeks through persistent provider follow-up across calls, faxes, emails, and portals. Combined with analysis on the same platform, that compresses total time from request to usable insight. Codes Health also cautions that same-day retrieval models typically return only what is immediately available electronically rather than the complete set, which pulls the client back into chasing the remainder and, it says, contributes to churn.
Independent Review Coverage and Buyer Diligence
A substantial independent review footprint for the current InQuery medical-record platform could not be verified on major software review sites. One Capterra result matching the name is an unrelated call-record query product from a different company, so it should not be read as evidence about this platform.
Review scarcity is common for newer legal-tech platforms. It means diligence should lean on:
Direct reference checks with current customers in your practice area
Pilot testing with actual case files
Contractual SLAs for turnaround and accuracy
Written documentation of exactly what the human QA layer includes
Both InQuery and Codes Health rely more on customer testimonials than marketplace ratings. Codes Health reports customer outcomes including reduced manual review time and increased case capacity. These are company-reported results, and individual results vary by case type, firm workflow, and matter complexity.
Getting Started: Evaluation Framework
Questions to Ask InQuery
Before committing, request clarity on:
Exact pricing model: Per chronology, per case, per page, subscription, or custom?
Retrieval depth: Which channels does retrieval actually cover, and what happens with non-responsive providers?
Human QA scope: What does the review include, is it on every chronology, and at what cost?
Authorization handling: Are authorizations checked for errors before submission, or only managed after rejection?
Completeness verification: What happens when returned records appear incomplete?
SOC 2 status: Where does Type II certification currently stand?
When to Evaluate Codes Health Instead
Firms should evaluate Codes Health when they need:
Pre-submission authorization validation: AI error checking before the request goes out
Plaintiff-specific analysis: Breach-of-care flagging and future medical expense extraction
Predictable flat-fee pricing: No per-page or per-chronology variability for contingency practices
Native case management integration: Embedded Filevine workflow rather than a build-it-yourself API
Custom integrations: CRM platforms and other medical software for high-volume firms
Codes Health's MIT-educated engineering team continuously builds out additional workflows and products, so the platform keeps evolving and becoming more comprehensive to meet the changing demands of modern legal practices.
The Bottom Line on InQuery
Most of what used to separate these two platforms no longer does. A year ago InQuery looked like a review tool you pointed at records you already had. Today it retrieves them, manages authorizations, chases providers, flags missing documents, and returns chronologies traceable to the page and Bates number, with human review on top. Any comparison that still describes it as review-only is out of date.
So the honest version of this comparison is short. Three things are documented for Codes Health and were not found in InQuery's current public product pages: AI that checks an authorization for errors before it is submitted rather than managing the rejection afterward, breach-of-care flagging, and future medical expense extraction. Add flat-fee pricing against a model InQuery does not publish consistently, and native Filevine embedding against a REST integration you build yourself.
Whether those five things matter depends entirely on your practice. A firm doing defense-side review work may not need any of them. A plaintiff firm whose case values turn on liability indicators and documented future care will find them hard to work without, and should look at Codes Health on those specific grounds rather than on a general claim about which platform is more complete.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is InQuery best suited for?
InQuery fits firms that want AI-powered chronology generation with source-linked citations, and that are comfortable with a dual legal and insurance market product. It also offers managed retrieval, so it is no longer only a review tool.
Does InQuery handle medical record retrieval?
Yes. InQuery maintains a dedicated retrieval service covering provider identification, authorization preparation and management, request tracking, follow-up until records arrive, and delivery of an indexed, deduplicated file with missing records flagged.
How does InQuery pricing work?
InQuery does not publish a single consistent public price. Its own materials reference per-chronology, volume subscription, custom, and page-based models, so buyers should request a current quote for their use case. Codes Health uses flat-fee pricing and does not publicly disclose a dollar amount.
Is InQuery SOC 2 certified?
InQuery states that it maintains a SOC 2 Type I attestation and is working toward SOC 2 Type II. It also describes itself as HIPAA compliant and signs Business Associate Agreements.
What does Codes Health offer that was not found in InQuery's documentation?
Pre-submission AI authorization error checking, breach-of-care flagging, and future medical expense extraction are documented Codes Health capabilities that were not found in InQuery's current public product pages. Missing-record detection and pre-existing condition identification are advertised by both, so those are not points of difference.
Can I try InQuery before committing?
Independent review coverage for the platform is limited, so pilot testing with actual case files is worth doing. Ask for direct references from current customers in your practice area to validate performance claims.
How do Codes Health and InQuery compare on integration?
InQuery states that it offers REST-based integration, though detailed public API documentation is not available. Codes Health provides native Filevine integration that embeds requests, status tracking, and record delivery inside case files, plus custom CRM and medical software integrations for high-volume firms.
What turnaround times should I expect?
InQuery describes AI-assisted review of a moderately complex personal injury case of roughly 3,000 to 5,000 pages taking 2 to 6 hours of platform processing plus attorney review, once records are in hand. Getting the records is the longer part, and that varies by provider, pathway, and vendor. Codes Health says it works toward complete records in a couple of weeks with analysis on the same platform.
