Croft Guidelines Cons in Brief

Over the years I have heard negative comments about the Croft Guidelines by healthcare providers as well as both plaintiff and defense attorneys. It did not take long to realize their arguments were not based on a clear understanding of the guidelines or how they were created. Except for unreasonable chiropractors using extremely excessive volume of treatments. Meaning these DC™s were about number of visits without regards to the PI case, patient needs or objective findings.

I have reviewed cases where the provider treated a non-diagnosed case for three times a week for 6 and 9 months. No initial exam, no re-exams no logic in relation to the injuries. Meaning chiropractors with runaway treatment plans. By them using the Croft Guidelines would reduce the number of incredulous number of visits they desire. However, that is not the point of this article.

There may be a few doctors who will attempt to take advantage of the Croft protocols. For those, these standards are not blank checks for cervical acceleration deceleration (CAD) treatments. Credibility as taught by Dr. Arthur Croft (the author of the Croft Guidelines) and myself. These protocols are not prescriptions for care, nor do they provide for dishonest abuses of medically unnecessary treatment. On the other hand, certain cases may require greater care than protocol numbers indicate. This is due to underlying conditions or complications as published by Dr. Croft and myself.

To be more fully educated the details of the Croft Guidelines take PI ONLINE Training Courses. There is a one-page summary of the Croft Guidelines on this website.