No. The system prompt is explicit that SleekAI does not tell a claimant whether their denial was wrongful, what benefits they are owed, or how their specific case should be evaluated. It describes the firm's practice scope, the general procedural posture of workers comp in your jurisdictions, and your intake process. Every case-specific question routes to a free consultation with an attorney licensed in the claimant's state. That separation is the only way a chatbot can operate on a workers comp site without crossing into unauthorised practice or creating a duty-of-care problem before any retainer has been signed.

Yes, if you publish jurisdictional pages for the states you practice in. Reporting deadlines, panel-doctor rules, denial-appeal procedures, and indemnity-rate frameworks vary significantly state to state, and the bot reads from your pages rather than generalising. For firms practicing in one state, you can run a single bot grounded entirely in that state's framework. For multi-state firms, you can configure display conditions or multibot so the right intake flow shows up on the right state's pages.

Yes. A claimant who has not yet reported the injury to their employer is in a different position than one whose claim has already been denied, and the bot recognises that from the caller's description. Pre-claim intakes get walked through your reporting-deadline framing and booked for an urgent consultation. Post-denial intakes get the denial reason captured from the letter and a consultation booked within the appeal window. Both flows defer the legal analysis to the attorney.

It asks neutrally. Aggravation of a pre-existing condition is a common denial basis and a frequently disputed one, and the bot captures whether the denial cited it without telling the claimant whether the denial is defensible. That distinction matters because aggravation analysis is jurisdiction-specific and fact-specific, and the wrong answer from a chatbot could either give a claimant false confidence or talk them out of a viable claim. The bot routes the question to the attorney.

It recognises the pattern from the caller's description. A panel doctor clearing the claimant for full duty while the claimant is still in pain is a common posture, as is a light-duty offer that effectively converts the claim from indemnity to medical-only. The bot captures the facts (panel doctor or own provider, work status, treatment plan) and routes the case to the attorney. Most states have specific panel-change procedures that the attorney can walk the claimant through, but the bot does not attempt to do that analysis itself.

The bot captures the intake in your WordPress database and you push the summary into your case-management system via a webhook or scheduled export. Most workers comp firms use Filevine, MyCase, or a state-specific case-management tool, and the SleekAI conversation log forwards as a structured summary rather than a raw transcript. That summary becomes the first matter note in the system when the consultation is booked.

No. Whether a claimant should give a recorded statement to the employer's insurer is a strategic question that depends on the specific case and the jurisdiction's procedure, and the bot does not opine on it. It will capture whether a statement has already been given or has been requested, and route that information to the consultation. The attorney decides. The bot does not.

If a caller describes an active medical emergency, an ongoing workplace incident, or any imminent danger, the system prompt instructs the bot to break role and direct them to call 911 or their local emergency service before continuing. Workers comp intake is typically retrospective, but occasionally a caller is describing an active injury or threat, and the right response is to route them to emergency services and pause the intake until they are safe.