Kalinda

What do they actually do

Kalinda provides a HIPAA‑aware cloud platform that ingests plaintiff records (medical, pharmacy, billing PDFs), extracts key facts, and produces claimant‑level reports such as medical chronologies. The product also includes a dashboard to review outputs and manage triage and case progress, as described in its privacy policy and product pages (privacy policy, medchron).

Plaintiff‑side firms use Kalinda to speed intake and qualification. The company publicly states it is live with two of the largest plaintiff law firms in the U.S. and reports processing roughly 600,000 pages of records to date (YC profile; also referenced in launch posts on LinkedIn/Y Combinator example). The site emphasizes enterprise security and HIPAA‑aligned infrastructure, which is relevant given the PHI/PII handled (homepage).

In practice, firms upload large bundles of claimant records, Kalinda automatically extracts providers, dates, treatments, and other eligibility facts, then generates a chronology and structured outputs for review in a dashboard. A published example shows a ~3,000‑page record set converted into a chronology in about 20 minutes, illustrating the time‑savings in vetting and filing preparation (medchron; privacy policy; founder demo discussion: YouTube).

Who are their target customer(s)

• Paralegals and intake reviewers at plaintiff firms: They must read and triage thousands of pages across medical, pharmacy, and billing PDFs; manual review is slow and inconsistent. Kalinda’s medical‑chronology example shows large record sets turned into usable timelines quickly (medchron).
• Partners and associates deciding which claimants to pursue: They need reliable extractions (dates, providers, treatments) from scattered records to assess eligibility and prepare filings; manual extraction limits how many cases they can evaluate (medchron; YC profile).
• Litigation support / document teams: Converting heterogeneous PDFs into structured facts and summaries is error‑prone and resource intensive; Kalinda positions as an automated extractor and report generator for plaintiff records (privacy policy).
• Practice managers / operations leads: Throughput and cost are constrained by staffing for manual review, creating a bottleneck for filings. Demonstrated production volume (hundreds of thousands of pages) provides comfort on scalability (YC profile).
• Compliance and security officers: They must ensure PHI/PII is handled safely under HIPAA and enterprise standards before sending records to any vendor; Kalinda highlights HIPAA and enterprise security on its site (homepage).

How would they acquire their first 10, 50, and 100 customers

• First 10: Convert existing large live deployments and a few mid‑size plaintiff teams via focused pilots that clear backlogs into medical chronologies, producing measurable time‑savings and referenceable wins (YC profile; medchron).
• First 50: Use referrals, targeted outbound, and peer channels to expand across regional plaintiff shops; offer low‑risk batch trials for paralegal/intake teams and recruit litigation‑support vendors/bar associations as referral partners (medchron; homepage).
• First 100: Scale through channel partnerships and integrations with e‑discovery/case‑management vendors and legal process outsourcers; streamline onboarding and enterprise procurement with HIPAA/ISO trust artifacts (privacy policy; homepage).

What is the rough total addressable market

Top-down context:

Plaintiff/personal‑injury legal services revenue in the U.S. is estimated at ~$57.3B in 2024, which defines the buyer universe but not software spend directly (IBISWorld).

Bottom-up calculation:

A practical software TAM proxy is the U.S. eDiscovery/document‑review market, estimated around $3.3B in 2024; Kalinda targets the plaintiff‑side automated extraction/chronology slice of this spend (IMARC).

Assumptions:

• Kalinda’s near‑term dollars come from document‑review/eDiscovery budgets inside plaintiff firms, not the full plaintiff services revenue pool.
• Adoption displaces portions of manual review spend rather than creating large net‑new budget lines.
• Scope focuses on the U.S.; international markets are excluded.

Who are some of their notable competitors

• Superinsight.ai: AI‑first medical‑record review and medical‑chronology tool emphasizing automated, fast chronology generation and HIPAA‑aligned processing; competes directly on extracting facts and producing case‑ready timelines (site, chronology).
• Wisedocs.ai: Medical‑record review and summary platform combining AI extraction with human QA, pitching HIPAA/SOC 2 enterprise security; overlaps on structured outputs and legal‑ready summaries for claims teams (site).
• SettLiT (Medchart US Inc.): Digital health‑data network that retrieves medical, pharmacy, and payer data and returns searchable histories and attorney‑friendly summaries; competes on intake speed by pulling data directly, not only from uploaded PDFs (site, features).
• Ontellus: Established records‑retrieval and litigation‑support vendor offering nationwide medical record collection plus organization, OCR/indexing, and chronologies/summaries; competes via end‑to‑end retrieval plus value‑added summaries (legal, records retrieval).
• InPractice.ai: AI record‑review and medical‑chronology tool targeting the same use cases (timelines, indexed records, HIPAA‑compliant hosting), competing on turning raw records into triageable outputs for plaintiff teams (site).