If your child stopped treatment for a few weeks after a dog bite to the face, the insurance company is going to act like that gap proves everything was minor.

That's the game.

And if they found an old MRI from years ago, maybe from headaches, a fall, sports, anything involving the head, face, neck, or jaw, they'll try to jam that into the same argument: this wasn't really caused by the dog bite, or it wasn't as serious as you're claiming.

In Bossier City, that gets ugly fast because facial injuries to a child are not just about the ER bill. It's follow-up care. Plastic surgery consults. Infection checks. Scar treatment. Sometimes counseling if the child won't sleep, won't go near dogs, or melts down every time somebody comes close to their face.

Miss a stretch of that treatment, and the adjuster suddenly acts like none of it mattered.

Why the gap hurts so much

A home health aide in Bossier City already has a rough schedule. Early mornings. Split shifts. Last-minute calls. One kid gets hurt and life goes off the rails. Maybe you went to Willis-Knighton Bossier right after the bite, got stitches or wound care instructions, then missed the specialist follow-up because you had no paid time off, no sitter, no ride, or the child was terrified.

Those are real reasons.

The insurer does not give a damn.

From their side, a gap in treatment means one of three things: the child got better, the parents weren't worried, or something else caused the later problems. They'll use whichever version saves them money.

That's why a four-week gap can crush case value more than most people realize. Not because the injury disappeared. Because the paper trail did.

The old MRI problem

This part throws families.

The dog bite is to the face. The old MRI might be from two or three years ago. Maybe it was after a playground fall. Maybe the child had migraines. Maybe there was a sinus issue. The insurer sees imaging in the medical history and pounces.

Now they start asking questions that sound medical but are really about blame.

Was there already a facial issue? Was there a prior nerve complaint? Was there a preexisting scar, headache history, vision complaint, jaw pain, or anxiety diagnosis?

Even when the old MRI has little to do with a fresh dog bite, they use it to muddy the water. They're not trying to be fair. They're trying to create enough confusion to justify a low offer or a denial.

And if there was also a treatment gap, they stack the arguments together: old condition plus delayed care equals not our problem.

What actually matters in a Bossier City dog bite claim

Louisiana is different from a lot of states. It runs on a civil law system rooted in the Napoleonic Code, not the usual common-law setup people hear about online. That matters because broad internet advice from Texas or Arkansas can send you in the wrong direction.

Louisiana is also a direct action state. In plain English, that means the liability insurer can be sued directly instead of hiding behind the dog owner. For a dog bite at a friend's house in Bossier City, that usually means the homeowners insurer is right in the middle of it from day one.

So the file becomes all about proof.

Not just proof that the dog bit your child. Proof that the bite caused the treatment, the scarring concerns, the emotional fallout, and any later recommendations from doctors.

If treatment went cold for a while, the most useful thing is not an argument. It's documentation that explains the break.

• missed work and no leave at your home health job
• trouble getting from north Bossier or Benton Road over to Shreveport specialists
• the child refusing wound care or follow-up because of fear
• waiting on referrals, approvals, or records
• being told to "watch it" before returning if the scar worsened

Those reasons may be legitimate. But if they're not in the records somewhere, the adjuster acts like they never happened.

What the insurer is really doing with the old records

They want permission to say the bite only caused a temporary cut.

That's it.

If they can downgrade the incident to "superficial laceration, healed without complication," the money drops. If they can tie any ongoing issue to the old MRI instead of the dog attack, it drops again. If there's a treatment gap on top of that, they'll say your own conduct broke the chain.

For a child bitten at a friend's house near Airline Drive or in one of those quiet subdivisions off Benton Road, families often hesitate because they don't want to blow up the relationship. Meanwhile the insurer is building a file that treats the child like a billing dispute.

Facial dog bites in children are high-stakes claims because scars can change as the face grows. A bad gap in treatment lets the insurer pretend that future scar revision, therapy, or specialist care came out of nowhere.

That old MRI is usually not the real issue.

The real issue is whether the records clearly show this child was doing one thing before the dog attack and something very different after it. Once the treatment timeline gets choppy, the insurer has room to argue, delay, and cheapen the whole case.