The Louisiana Supreme Court issued an opinion in Lealon Johnson v. AECOM Amentum Government Services that addresses critical timing issues in workers' compensation law, specifically when injured employees must file disputed claims for benefits.
The court's decision, written by Justice McCallum and released December 18, 2025, tackles two key legal questions that have significant implications for both injured workers and employers across Louisiana.
The case centers on the interpretation of Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1209, which requires injured employees to file disputed workers' compensation claims within one year from the date of accident, provided the injury manifests immediately. The legal dispute arose when an employer accommodated an injured worker by continuing full-time employment at full salary, resulting in no initial wage loss.
Justice McCallum wrote that this workers' compensation case presents "purely legal issues concerning the timeliness of an injured worker's claim for benefits." The court examined when the prescriptive period for filing a disputed claim begins "where an employer accommodates an injured employee with continued full-time employment at his full salary and the employee suffers no initial loss of wages."
The Louisiana Workers' Compensation Law currently provides no exception to the one-year prescriptive period for employees who do not initially suffer wage loss following work-related accidents. This gap in the law created uncertainty about when the clock starts ticking for filing claims in cases where employers maintain injured workers' full compensation.
The court's analysis focused on the provisions of the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Law and specifically examined La. R.S. 23:1209. Under this statute's current form, injured employees must file disputed compensation claims within one year from accident dates when injuries manifest immediately, regardless of whether they experience immediate wage loss.
The second major issue addressed by the court involved the legal effect when employers begin and continue workers' compensation payments after the one-year prescriptive period has already tolled. The court characterized this as a "res nova issue," indicating it was a matter of first impression requiring fresh legal analysis.
To resolve this novel question, Justice McCallum examined the language of the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Law, the legislative goal of protecting injured workers, and the application of other civil law concepts. This comprehensive analysis led the court to conclude that employers who engage in such conduct "tacitly renounce the accrued prescription and thereby waive the right to assert prescription as a defense."
The court's reasoning aligns with established legal principles regarding prescription statutes. While these statutes must be strictly construed, prescription can nevertheless be waived under certain circumstances. The court found that when employers voluntarily begin compensation payments after the prescription period expires, they effectively surrender their right to claim the worker filed too late.
This ruling provides important clarity for Louisiana's workers' compensation system by addressing scenarios where employers initially accommodate injured workers but later disputes arise. The decision protects workers who may not realize they need to file formal claims when their employers initially maintain their employment and salary.
The case was decided through supervisory writ to the Office of Workers' Compensation, District 2. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the matter, with Justice Crain concurring and Justice Guidry concurring in the result.
The practical implications of this decision extend beyond the specific parties involved. Employers who accommodate injured workers by maintaining full employment and salary should understand that later initiation of compensation payments may constitute waiver of prescription defenses. Conversely, injured workers benefit from clarification that employer accommodation does not extend filing deadlines under current law.
This ruling also highlights potential legislative considerations for Louisiana's workers' compensation framework. The court noted that the current law "provides no exception" to the prescriptive period for employees who suffer no initial wage loss, suggesting lawmakers might consider whether such exceptions would better serve the law's protective purposes.
For practitioners in Louisiana workers' compensation law, this decision provides crucial guidance on timing requirements and prescription defenses. The court's analysis of tacit renunciation and waiver principles offers a framework for evaluating similar cases where employer conduct may affect prescription rights.
The Johnson v. AECOM decision represents the Louisiana Supreme Court's effort to balance strict adherence to statutory prescription periods with protection of injured workers' rights. By allowing waiver through employer conduct while maintaining the general one-year filing requirement, the court preserved the law's structure while addressing practical realities of workplace injury accommodation.
This opinion will likely influence how workers' compensation practitioners advise both injured workers and employers regarding claim filing requirements and potential defenses in cases involving continued employment after workplace injuries.