The follow-up treatment fee usually refers to the expenses incurred when the previous treatment signs have been stable，but there are still functional disorders such as tissues and organs that need follow-up treatment，or the injury has not recovered and needs secondary treatment. Due to the great uncertainty and unpredictability of whether the follow-up treatment fee is generated and the specific amount，there is a great controversy on the identification standard and claim method adopted in judicial practice. According to the principle of full compensation，there should be a causal relationship between the follow-up treatment fee claimed by the victim and the infringement behavior of the infringer. The follow-up treatment fee that the victim can claim together with the medical expenses that have already occurred should be necessary and reasonable. That is to say，the follow-up treatment fee is inevitable and can meet the basic needs of treatment and rehabilitation of victims. Although the victim usually claims for the cost of follow-up treatment for the first instance to reduce the litigation burden，except that the cost is necessary，the court will usually inform the victim that he can make another claim after it occurs. The victim’s separate prosecution for the cost of follow-up treatment does not constitute repeated prosecution.