Louisiana changed an important rule for connecting an injury to an accident in 2025. For claims governed by the new law, having no previous history of a condition does not create a legal presumption that the accident caused it. A claimant must establish causation through the evidence.
The change appears in Code of Evidence article 306.1. It took effect on May 28, 2025. Understanding its effect requires three separate questions: when the cause of action arose, whether the claim falls within the statute, and what the records actually show.
What the former Housley presumption required
The rule took its name from Housley v. Cerise, 579 So. 2d 973 (La. 1991). The familiar formulation required good health before the accident, symptoms of the disabling condition beginning with the accident and continuing afterward, and medical evidence showing a reasonable possibility of a connection. Prior good health was only one part of that showing.
A federal court’s discussion in Miller v. Mr. B’s Bistro, Inc., No. 04-3271, order of August 5, 2005, pp. 4–5, illustrates those requirements. Describing the old rule as automatic compensation whenever someone became sore after an accident leaves out the evidentiary conditions.
What Act 18 changed
Act 18 of 2025 expressly states the legislature’s intent to overrule Housley. Its operative provision concerns a presumption of injury causation in personal injury claims. It does not announce that medical histories are irrelevant, eliminate the need to investigate competing causes, or prescribe a particular medical test for every injury.
Scroll horizontally to see all columns. Use the arrow keys when the table is focused.
| Issue | Former Housley framework | Claims governed by article 306.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Previous good health | One element of the required foundation for the presumption. | Absence of a prior condition cannot itself create the prohibited presumption. |
| Timing of symptoms | Symptoms had to begin with the accident and continue afterward. | A chronology remains part of the factual record; it must be evaluated with the other proof. |
| Medical connection | Medical evidence was part of the presumption’s foundation. | The claimant still needs evidence connecting the claimed injury to the event. |
| Fault for the accident | A causation presumption did not establish every other element of liability. | Fault, causation, and the amount of damages remain separate questions. |
The date that matters is when the cause of action arose
Section 3 of Act 18 makes the change prospective and excludes causes of action arising before its effective date. The legislature’s résumé digest identifies May 28, 2025 as that date. A hearing held in 2026 does not, by itself, make article 306.1 applicable to an older claim.
For a straightforward crash causing immediate injury, the accident and injury dates are natural starting points. A delayed injury, an alleged continuing course of conduct, or a specialized claim can require a more detailed analysis. The date of a demand letter or an insurer’s denial should not be substituted for the date the cause of action arose.
Scroll horizontally to see all columns. Use the arrow keys when the table is focused.
| Hypothetical situation | Issue to examine |
|---|---|
| An ordinary injury claim arose in April 2025; suit is filed later. | Act 18’s prospective clause excludes causes of action arising before May 28, 2025. Whether the former presumption’s factual requirements are met remains a separate issue. |
| An ordinary injury claim arose in September 2025. | Evaluate article 306.1 and the affirmative evidence of medical causation. |
| An injury is pursued through the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Law. | Article 306.1 expressly excludes claims raised under that law. Analyze the compensation claim under its own authorities. |
The workers’ compensation exception follows the claim
The statutory exception refers to a claim raised under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Law. The fact that someone was working when injured does not answer every question. An employee may have a compensation claim and a separate tort claim against another party. Each claim needs its own analysis; the employee’s job status alone does not establish that both fall within the exception.
A 2026 decision shows why older claims still need careful proof
In Hollyfield v. Tullos, No. 2026-C-0300 (La. App. 4 Cir. July 23, 2026), pp. 5–6 & n.4, the court discussed Act 18’s prospective operation in litigation concerning a 2016 medical examination. It nevertheless rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on the former presumption: the records showed relevant symptoms before the examination.
The court also addressed the distinct need for expert evidence in the malpractice claim. The decision illustrates two different limits. An older claim does not automatically satisfy Housley, and an injury-causation argument does not necessarily establish a physician’s breach of the applicable standard of care. The court reversed the denial of summary judgment on the malpractice claim while leaving the separate intentional-tort issue outside that ruling.
Build a chronology that allows the evidence to be evaluated
A useful chronology records what happened before the accident, what happened during it, and what changed afterward. It should distinguish the patient’s account, a provider’s examination findings, test results, and a provider’s actual opinion about causation. Those are different kinds of evidence.
Scroll horizontally to see all columns. Use the arrow keys when the table is focused.
| Record category | Question it helps answer |
|---|---|
| Earlier treatment, imaging, and activity records | What symptoms, diagnoses, limitations, or treatment existed before the event? |
| Incident reports, photographs, and witness accounts | What occurred, and what was observed at the time? |
| Initial medical records | When were symptoms reported, what history was provided, and what findings were documented? |
| Follow-up treatment and medical opinions | How did the condition develop, and what explanation connects it to the event? |
| Intervening events and treatment gaps | Are there other events or missing information that need an explanation? |
These categories are an organizational aid, not a promise that a particular record proves a claim. A complete history can include facts that support or weaken the proposed connection. Keeping those facts visible allows a medical opinion to address the actual history.
Preexisting conditions require a precise description of the claimed change
Consider a person who had intermittent back symptoms before a collision and reports a new limitation afterward. The useful questions concern the earlier baseline, the nature and timing of the change, subsequent examinations, and whether the medical evidence attributes any worsening to the collision. Saying only “there was already a back problem” or “the pain increased afterward” does not complete that analysis.
Likewise, a person with no earlier diagnosis still needs an evidentiary connection. Article 306.1 addresses the presumption; it does not turn the presence or absence of a diagnosis into a complete case assessment.
For the other date-dependent changes affecting injury litigation, see our Louisiana injury-law effective-date guide. Keep the causation rule separate from the filing deadline: satisfying one does not satisfy the other.
Research date: October 16, 2026. Examples are hypothetical. This article explains the cited authorities and provides general information; it does not determine the governing law or proof for an individual claim.
Related Louisiana guidance. Medical causation and the amount recoverable for treatment are separate issues. Our medical-bill recovery guide addresses the latter. Our Louisiana personal-injury guide explains how evidence, responsibility, and damages fit into the larger claim. Browse the full Louisiana Legal Research collection for additional topics.