Results at scale
Measured Impact. Proven Results.
Our whole client portfolio through July 2026 - how many baselines exist, how often they get used, and what happened when they were.
The portfolio, end to end
Read left to right, the four figures are one arithmetic chain: 245,762 baselines at a 3.3% post-incident rate is about 8,045 assessments, and 88% of those - about 7,080 - are cases where the findings matched the baseline. That last number is the one the dollar figure is built on.
The $327.4M is potential exposure avoided, not money anybody banked. The method is no-change cases × national-average developed claim cost, weighted by PMH body-part mix.
Safety outcomes
Well below industry injury rates
PMH trucking clients run around a third of the industry recordable rate, measured in the same terms a safety director already reports.
TRIR - Total Recordable Incident Rate
PMH1.2
Industry3.2
PMH clients run 37% of the industry rate - 3.2 down to 1.2.
DART - Days Away, Restricted or Transferred
PMH1.0
Industry2.6
PMH clients run 38% of the industry rate - 2.6 down to 1.0.
This is a correlation, and it should be presented as one. Employers who buy an objective injury-management program are already investing in safety. The supportable claim is that objective injury management sits alongside materially better OSHA outcomes, not that it caused them. Source: OSHA ITA establishment data (CY2025), trucking (NAICS 484). PMH client figures reflect trucking-population clients.
Return to work
Drivers back in the truck, faster
3.8 days
Last day worked to full duty
Average time from a driver's last day worked back to full duty, where the post-incident assessment was done promptly. Across 1,022 driver post-incidents at 5 national carriers over 3 years.
For a driver, the outcome that counts is full duty. The sooner an objective clearance exists, the sooner a cleared driver is back in the truck. Where the assessment finds a change, it aims care at the region that actually moved, on day one.
Read the condition on the figure. It is the average where testing was prompt, so it also measures how quickly the client's incident-reporting workflow moves. Aggregated and de-identified.
Case evidence
Objective findings, in both directions
Two no-change determinations and one confirmed injury.
Shoulder pain after cranking landing gear
Reported. Driver reported right shoulder pain after manually cranking the trailer landing gear.
EFA findings. Symmetric EMG activation, without pathological indicators of myofascial injury, and poor and inconsistent effort on requested tasks. All findings matched the baseline.
What it supports. Objective grounds to support no change of condition.
Low-back pain after a road jolt
Reported. Driver hit a hard bump or pothole, was jolted in the seat, and reported new low-back pain.
EFA findings. Pathological markers of low-back pain, including hyperactivity in the low-back muscles, were present on both the baseline and post-incident EFA.
What it supports. Findings matched the pre-incident baseline, supporting a pre-existing condition rather than a new acute injury.
Low-back pain after a rear-end collision
Reported. Driver was rear-ended at a stop and reported left low-back pain radiating down the left leg.
EFA findings. New-onset left-sided hyperactivity in the low back and left lower extremity was not present at baseline.
What it supports. A genuine, objectively documented new injury and care directed to the affected region.
De-identified driver assessments, illustrative of the methodology and not tied to any single client. Analysis looks across multiple tasks, at rest and in dynamic muscle movement, through EMG, range of motion and force.
Account level
Six accounts, and what actually happened
Case study 1
Manufacturing company - testing the courts
A claimant was seeking a third back surgery. The EFA evidence showed the surgery would not be of benefit. The judge ordered no further medical treatment, no surgery and no continuing medical maintenance. After the permanent-partial-disability order, the claim settled for $2,000 over the ordered PPD.
$170,000Reserved before EFA evidencePPD + $2,000Final settlementClosed outNo continuing medical tail
Case study 2
Appliance company - operations in four states
Seven policy years, three before the program and four after. Total incurred fell from $362,570 in Year 3 to $71,551 in Year 7, an 80% reduction. Claims as a percentage of payroll fell from 3.97% to 1.10%.
Case study 3
Community Services Group
Five policy years. Total incurred fell from $451,809.72 to $39,280.83, a 91% reduction; average cost per claim fell from $8,068.03 to $491.10. Results were not monotonic: both measures moved back up in Year 4 before falling again.
Case study 4
Nursing home
Across the same five-year window, incurred fell from $288,119.27 to $14,952.11, a 95% reduction. Average cost per claim fell from $8,231.98 to $2,990.42. The exposure is dominated by patient-handling back and shoulder risk.
Case study 5
Emergency medical services company
Total incurred fell from a $113,390 five-year pre-program average to $9,153 in Year 1 and $1,647 in Year 2. Average cost per claim fell from $45,356 to $549. Workers' compensation premium fell from $210,388 in Year 1 to $86,997 in Year 3 - a 59% reduction over three years.
Case study 6
National truckload carrier
Over 10 years on the program, the carrier recorded $156.5M in claim cost reductions and a 559% return on program spend.
10 yearsProgram duration$156.5MClaim cost reductions559%Return on program spend
The economics
What the model says, and what it assumes
The sample ROI analysis, reproduced and made interactive, then taken apart so the assumptions are visible.
Run it on your own numbers
Annual program cost$10,000Projected annual saving$79,905Net gain$69,905Return on program spend799%
Saving divided by cost - a return multiple, not a net margin. The reduction percentage is an assumption, not a quote. Year one carries baseline cost with little claim benefit yet.
Variables the model leaves out
- The organization's cost of capital. Claim dollars are paid over years; program dollars are paid on day one.
- Medicare set-aside exposure. Ongoing-treatment findings can drive a large, less visible liability.
- The experience modifier. This model counts claim dollars, not the premium those claims price for the following three years.
Scientific validation
Validated by
- FDA registration (Class II medical device)
- Acceptance under the Daubert Standard for Federal admissibility
- Compliance with ADA, EEOC, CMS and OSHA guidelines
- Alignment with peer-reviewed EFA research and emerging diagnostic frameworks