Greetings, I am often asked what can be done with the “old dog” claims where the claimant simply goes to the doctor once a year to keep the Statute of Limitations from expiring.
There is a case that addresses the issue, but also a word of caution. You have to look at the economics of the decision, and the risk of owing the claimant’s attorney fees. Sometimes it may make sense to fight it, and sometimes the better decision is to let “old sleeping dogs” lie.
In 2015, the 1st DCA ruled on the issue in Echevarria vs. Luxor Invs. (link below). In this case, they ruled the claimant had to prove the follow ups were “medically necessary.” So if the treating doctor states they are no longer medical necessary, you can deny future care. I would make sure the claimant has used his 1-time change, and you are possibly creating litigation, but in some instance, this may be the most prudent path.
Morgan Indek | Partner