Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workers Comp Petition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Labor Committee advances bill tightening workers’ compensation petition rules over objections from injured‑worker attorneys
Summary
The Senate Labor Committee reported House Bill 456 favorably after extended testimony. The bill would revise petition content and broaden employers’ ability to file disputed claims under the workers’ compensation code; plaintiff‑side attorneys warned it would invite premature litigation and harm unrepresented claimants.
The Senate Labor Committee on March 14 voted to report House Bill 456 favorably after a lengthy hearing that split witnesses representing injured workers and business groups.
Representative Chenover introduced HB 456 as a set of amendments to the workers’ compensation petition requirements in revised statute 23 13 11 and to employer/payer rights to file disputed claims. The bill would add required names and addresses, factual statements describing time/place/nature/cause of injury, and a concise prayer for relief to the petition; it also would expand circumstances in which an employer or payer may file disputed claims beyond the current fraud and medical‑director appeal grounds under revised statute 23 12 03.
Why it matters: Supporters say the changes clarify pleadings and allow employers to challenge questionable claims earlier in the process. Opponents — mostly plaintiff attorneys — said the measure would revive problems seen after similar 2012 legislation and would disadvantage unrepresented injured workers.
Shannon Lindsey, an attorney who represents injured workers, urged the committee to decline favorable passage. "Act 860 of 2012 wreaked absolute havoc and chaos upon our system," Lindsey said, urging members to preserve the 2013 compromise (Act 337) that created the safe‑harbor procedure in LSA‑R.S. 23:12.01.1. She told the committee the 2013 changes allow employers to suspend or terminate benefits in a procedural safe harbor while protecting claimants from premature litigation.
Another plaintiff attorney, Shannon Dartez, told senators the Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWC) was overrun after 2012 and that many districts still lack mediators and staff to handle litigation. Dartez asked the committee to request a fiscal note, saying additional filings would impose state costs and leave unrepresented claimants at risk.
Opposing witnesses from business and stakeholder groups disagreed on the scale of past problems. Joel LaSainte, who took part in the stakeholder committee that drafted the expanded 10‑08 form, said the multi‑party work‑group settled petition issues and that the new form (expanded to four pages in October 2025) already addresses many concerns. Patrick Robinson of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry said he found no significant statewide increase in disputes after the 2012 law and cited OWC data that unrepresented claimants are a small share of current cases.
Senator Presley moved to report the bill favorably. On the roll call, the committee recorded five yes votes and one no vote (Senator Barrow); House Bill 456 was reported favorably out of committee.
What’s next: The committee action sends HB 456 out of the Senate Labor Committee for further consideration by the full chamber. The hearing record shows substantive disagreement over whether the bill would restore past abuses or merely modernize pleadings; supporters and opponents recommended technical adjustments and data collection before broader adoption.
