Senate committee removes Housley presumption from jury instructions, reports House Bill 450 favorably

House Bill 450, which would eliminate the evidentiary presumption known from Housley v. Sarris, was debated and reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Judiciary A on May 13, 2025.

The measure, introduced in the House and presented to the committee by Representative Mellorin, would make clear that “the lack of prior history of illness, injury, or condition shall not create a presumption that an illness, injury, or condition was caused by the act that was complained of.” Mellorin said the text restores a neutral allocation of proof: if a plaintiff alleges injuries arose from an accident, the plaintiff “has the burden of proving it.”

The bill matters because the Housley presumption—derived from the Louisiana Supreme Court’s Housley v. Sarris decision—has in some cases allowed plaintiffs who show prior good health and immediate post-accident symptoms to shift the burden to defendants to rebut causation. Supporters of HB 450 said removing the presumption returns causation to the plaintiff to prove and prevents speculative attributions of liability.

Opponents, including Mary Watson Smith, an appellate attorney who represents injured plaintiffs, said Housley applies only when a plaintiff satisfies three discrete elements: (1) evidence of good health prior to the accident, (2) symptoms that appeared and continued after the accident, and (3) a reasonable medical, circumstantial, or common-knowledge showing of a possible causal link. “If and only if the plaintiff proves all three of these elements,” Smith said, the burden may shift to the defendant, and defendants must then point to a specific alternate cause rather than conjecture.

Senator Carter repeatedly asked whether removing the presumption would increase litigation costs because plaintiffs might need to retain medical experts to establish causation. Representative Mellorin and others replied that treating physicians’ records or testimony often supply the necessary causation evidence and that the bill would not bar evidence of a lack of prior history from reaching the jury. Senator Luno and others pressed the sponsor for a clarifying amendment to explicitly say the jury may consider lack of prior history; the committee considered amendment set 1694, which would have added an explicit sentence that “the lack of a prior history of an illness, injury, or condition may be considered by the trier of fact.” That amendment failed on a roll call.

Public testimony included two speakers identified in the record: Mary Watson Smith, who opposed the bill, and Luke Williams, who also spoke in opposition on behalf of the Louisiana Association of Justice and gave examples where the Housley presumption allowed claims to be proven without expensive out-of-state experts. The committee placed 83 written cards of support into the record and 40 written cards in opposition that did not wish to speak.

Senator Edmonds moved to report the bill favorably. By roll call, the committee approved the motion and HB 450 was reported favorably to the Senate with the following recorded votes: Senator Munoz — no; Senator Luno — yes; Senator Carter — no; Senator Edmonds — yes; Senator Mizell — yes; Senator Jenkins — no; Senator Seba — yes; Chair — yes. The committee report closes the committee phase and advances the bill to the next legislative step in the Senate.

The debate preserved a clear distinction in the record between discussion (concerns about litigation cost, jury instructions, and evidentiary practice), proposed direction (a suggested—but failed—amendment to clarify jury instructions), and formal action (the committee vote to report favorably). The transcript does not show that the committee adopted statutory language barring the jury from considering a claimant’s lack of prior medical history; rather, the sponsor and some members acknowledged the bill’s text intends to leave such evidence admissible.