08/24/2026
During the 2026 legislative session, the Legislature passed HB 456, which became Act No. 648. The new law dramatically expanded an employer's ability to file its own Form 1008 against an injured worker. Previously, the law limited employer-filed claims to specific circumstances involving fraud and Medical Director appeals. Act 648 added the much broader authority to file a claim concerning “any other dispute arising pursuant to” the Workers' Compensation Act.
When HB 456 was first presented, its proponents, including the bill sponsor, a longtime workers' compensation defense attorney, and a representative of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI), said employers needed this authority primarily to obtain discovery. They argued that an employer paying benefits could not file suit and therefore could not compel depositions, subpoena medical records, or adequately investigate a claim.
Six days after the law took effect, an employer filed a lawsuit against its injured employee.
This was a bad accident that caused a lot of injuries. After several appeals to the State's workers' compensation Medical Director, a surgery was finally recommended for approval. So, the employer sues.
The employer's stated reason for filing was:
“Employer is filing suit to further investigate the subject accident and causation. Employer is specifically contesting whether Claimant could have injured all claimed body-parts.”
During the HB 456 hearing, a legislator warned: “The plea [of] I need more information is not a plea.”
LABI explained that the purpose was to let an employer file a lawsuit, conduct discovery, and obtain a decision while continuing benefits. But, in a legislative environment where workers' compensation attorneys are labeled as "trial lawyers" and the reason for workers' compensaiton insurance premiums being high and allegedly forcing employer out of the state, Act 648 (HB 456) creates more litigation and drives injured workers to get lawyers.
This is where the insurance/defense side says, "Well, you guys should like that [said in a very derogatory tone]."
But there is another practical problem for injured workers. Who is going to pay the attorney to defend these employer-filed lawsuits?
Many claimant attorneys still do not take a fee from weekly indemnity benefits. Now those attorneys may be expected to answer an employer's lawsuit, conduct and respond to discovery, prepare their client for deposition, defend the deposition, attend hearings, and potentially try the case, all on top of handling medical treatment and the day-to-day problems of the claim.
For claimant attorneys who previously chose not to take a fee from indemnity, Act 648 may make that model difficult to continue. Some may require an indemnity fee if they are expected to defend employer-filed litigation. Others may simply become more selective about the cases they accept.
That ultimately hurts injured workers by making representation more expensive and potentially harder to find when they have been sued.
So the concern is not only whether Act 648 allows an employer to file a lawsuit to go on a fishing expedition. It is also what happens to the injured worker who now has to defend that lawsuit?
It took only six days for that concern to stop being hypothetical.