I guess this is the most important point every clinician should keep in mind while visiting new heart failure cases. In fact nobody could say for sure that patients who enjoy a rise in ejection fraction after CRT implantation totally owe the device, as recovery is not unusual in cardiomyopathies. Though many of us apply the concept of postponing device recommendation in line with what registries and trials have shown, legal issues might lead to earlier (thus unnecessary) recommendations. Even if one is justified with implantation of CRT-P in a heart failure patient without any VT episode, which has been addressed and proved to be equally beneficial, the patient ends up with a CRT-D because of legal concerns. So, what should we do?