Housley presumption in Louisiana

2026Id. > This presumption has become known as the “Housley presumption.” In Housley v. Cerise, 579 So.2d 973 (La.1991), the supreme court held that a plaintiff's disability is presumed to have come from an accident where: 1) the plaintiff was in good health before the accident; 2) the symptoms of the plaintiff's alleged injury appeared and continuously manifested themselves after the accident; and 3) the plaintiff submits evidence, whether medical, circumstantial, or common knowledge, that demonstrates a reasonable possibility of causation between the accident and the alleged injury.

2025Under Housley, when a plaintiff can show he was in good health prior to an accident and symptoms appear thereafter, there is a presumption that the injuries resulted from the accident, provided that medical evidence demonstrates “a reasonable possibility of causal connection between the accident and the disabling condition.” Housley, 579 So. 2d at 980 .31 The court of appeal found that the Housley presumption applied, noting: Dowdy testified that he did not notice that he had any hearing issues until he got home from the Magnolia job.

2025See Detraz v. Lee, 05- 1263, p. 9 (La. 1/17/07), 950 So. 2d 557, 563 (“the application of the ‘Housley presumption’ is a factual issue as is the determination of causation, both of which are subject to the manifest error standard of review.”).

2012Detraz, supra. The Evidence As previously stated, there is no dispute that Porsche suffers from tinnitus and 30-35 percent permanent partial hearing loss in her left ear; the only questions before us are applicability of the Housley presumption and causation.

2023Additionally, numerous cases since Housley have applied the presumption when the plaintiff was injured but not “disabled.” See, e.g., Maranto, 650 So.2d at 761 (finding that the plaintiff, who 23-CA-89 10 suffered herniated disc injuries after an auto accident, was entitled to the Housley presumption, and that defendant, to defeat the presumption, must show some other particular incident could have caused the injury in question); Clement v. Carbon, 13-827 (La.

2023Additionally, numerous cases since Housley have applied the presumption when the plaintiff was injured but not “disabled.” See, e.g., Maranto, 650 So.2d at 761 (finding that the plaintiff, who 23-CA-89 10 suffered herniated disc injuries after an auto accident, was entitled to the Housley presumption, and that defendant, to defeat the presumption, must show some other particular incident could have caused the injury in question); Clement v. Carbon, 13-827 (La.

2013Dabog v. Deris, 625 So.2d 492, 493-94 (La.1993); Housley v. Cerise, 579 So.2d 973, 980 (La.1991). • This so-called Housley presumption can be broken down into three component parts: (i) the plaintiff must prove that he or she was in good health before the accident; (ii) the plaintiff must prove that subsequent to the accident symptoms of the alleged injury appeared and continuously manifested themselves afterwards; and (iii) the plaintiff must prove through evidence — medical, circumstantial, or common knowledge — a reasonable possibility of causation between the accident and the claimed injur

2013Dabog v. Deris, 625 So.2d 492, 493-94 (La.1993); Housley v. Cerise, 579 So.2d 973, 980 (La.1991). • This so-called Housley presumption can be broken down into three component parts: (i) the plaintiff must prove that he or she was in good health before the accident; (ii) the plaintiff must prove that subsequent to the accident symptoms of the alleged injury appeared and continuously manifested themselves afterwards; and (iii) the plaintiff must prove through evidence — medical, circumstantial, or common knowledge — a reasonable possibility of causation between the accident and the claimed injur

2013Id. • The Housley presumption is rebutta-ble; the defendant may rebut it by showing that some other particular incident could have caused the disabling condition. 19 Frank L.

2013Id. • The Housley presumption is rebutta-ble; the defendant may rebut it by showing that some other particular incident could have caused the disabling condition. 19 Frank L.

2023Williams, 10-0457, pp. 6-7, 46 So.3d at 272 (citing Housley v. Cerise, 579 So.2d 973, 980 (La. 1991))(other citations omitted).

2013This court in Williams v. Stewart, 10-0457, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/22/10), 46 So.3d 266, 272 , summarized the jurisprudence regarding the Housley presumption as follows: • In meeting the burden of proving causation, a plaintiff may be aided by a presumption of causation if before the accident the plaintiff was in good health, but subsequent to the accident the symptoms of the disabling condition appear and those symptoms continuously manifest themselves afterward providing that the evidence establishes a reasonable possibility of causal connection between the accident and the disabling cond

2011After hearing the testimony of eleven of the five hundred plaintiffs, the trial court applied a presumption of causation made applicable to negligence cases in Housley v. Cerise, 579 So.2d 973 (La.1991). 3 In Housley , the Supreme Court stated: In Lucas v. Insurance Company of North America, 342 So.2d 591 (La.1977), this Court stated: [a] claimant’s disability is presumed to have resulted from an accident, if before the accident the injured person was in good health, but commencing with the accident the symptoms of the disabling condition appear and continuously manifest themselves after-wards

2007In Lucas v. Insurance Company of North America, 342 So.2d 591 (La.1977), the supreme court stated: [a] claimant’s disability is presumed to have resulted from an accident, if before the accident the injured person was in good health, but commencing with the accident the symptoms of the disabling condition appear and continuously manifest themselves afterwards, providing that the medical evidence shows there to be a reasonable possibility of causal connection between the accident and the disabling condition. hnThis rule, further discussed in Housley v. Cerise, 579 So.2d 973 (La.1991), has becom

2023App. 1 Cir. 6/25/03), 885 So.2d 1144, 1150 (finding that preexisting degenerative disc disease does not prevent a plaintiff from establishing the pre-accident “good health” requirement for a Housley presumption). 23-CA-89 12 Moreover, inclusion of the Housley charge in this instance did not prejudice defendants.

2023App. 1 Cir. 6/25/03), 885 So.2d 1144, 1150 (finding that preexisting degenerative disc disease does not prevent a plaintiff from establishing the pre-accident “good health” requirement for a Housley presumption). 23-CA-89 12 Moreover, inclusion of the Housley charge in this instance did not prejudice defendants.

2023App. 5 Cir. 4/8/14), 153 So.3d 460, 464 (same); Lindsey v. USAA Prop. & Cas.

2023App. 5 Cir. 4/8/14), 153 So.3d 460, 464 (same); Lindsey v. USAA Prop. & Cas.

2023App. 4 Cir. 10/9/02), 830 So.2d 335, 339-40 (rejecting defendant’s suggestion that application of the Housley presumption was limited to a case in which the plaintiff suffered a “disability”); Thomas v. Comfort Ctr. of Monroe, LA, Inc., 10-494 (La.

2023App. 4 Cir. 10/9/02), 830 So.2d 335, 339-40 (rejecting defendant’s suggestion that application of the Housley presumption was limited to a case in which the plaintiff suffered a “disability”); Thomas v. Comfort Ctr. of Monroe, LA, Inc., 10-494 (La.

2015See Khammash v. Clark, 13-1564 (La.5/7/14), 145 So.3d 246, 258-59 ; Detraz v. Lee, 05-1263 (La.1/17/07), 950 So.2d 557, 562-63 ; Housley, 579 So.2d at 979 .

2015See Khammash v. Clark, 13-1564 (La.5/7/14), 145 So.3d 246, 258-59 ; Detraz v. Lee, 05-1263 (La.1/17/07), 950 So.2d 557, 562-63 ; Housley, 579 So.2d at 979 .

2014This Court has held that “Applicability of the [Housley presumption] is only appropriate when it has been established that plaintiff was healthy before the accident, was unhealthy afterwards, and there is a reasonable possibility of a causal connection between the accident and the injury.” Kelly v. Lugo, 01-542 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/27/01) , 802 So.2d 952, 955 .

2014See id. .

2011See Miller v. Tulane University Hospital, 2009-1740, pp. 7-9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/12/10), 38 So.3d 1142, 1146-47 (plaintiff not afforded Housley presumption when unable to prove first element of good health prior to subject accident).

2010See, e.g., Kelly v. AME Janitorial Services Co., 09-1167, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 4th Cir.3/3/10), 33 So.3d 358, 360-61 .

2010See, e.g., Kelly v. AME Janitorial Services Co., 09-1167, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 4th Cir.3/3/10), 33 So.3d 358, 360-61 .

2010Co. v. American Rent-All, Inc., 579 So.2d 429, 433 (La.1991)(causation); Detraz v. Lee, 05-1263, p. 9 (La.1/17/07), 950 So.2d 557, 562-63 (causation and applicability of the Housley presumption); Touchard v. SLEMCO Elec.

2010Co. v. American Rent-All, Inc., 579 So.2d 429, 433 (La.1991)(causation); Detraz v. Lee, 05-1263, p. 9 (La.1/17/07), 950 So.2d 557, 562-63 (causation and applicability of the Housley presumption); Touchard v. SLEMCO Elec.