La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1 (2026)

Occupational disease

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§1031.1.  Occupational disease

A.  Every employee who is disabled because of the contraction of an occupational disease as herein defined, or the dependent of an employee whose death is caused by an occupational disease, as herein defined, shall be entitled to the compensation provided in this Chapter the same as if said employee received personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

B.  An occupational disease means only that disease or illness which is due to causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to the particular trade, occupation, process, or employment in which the employee is exposed to such disease.  Occupational disease shall include injuries due to work-related carpal tunnel syndrome.  Degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, arthritis of any type, mental illness, and heart-related or perivascular disease are specifically excluded from the classification of an occupational disease for the purpose of this Section.

C.  Notwithstanding the limitations of Subsection B hereof, every laboratory technician who is disabled because of the contraction of any disease, diseased condition, or poisoning which disease, diseased condition, or poisoning is a result, whether directly or indirectly, of the nature of the work performed, or the dependent of a laboratory technician whose death is the result of a disease, diseased condition, or poisoning, whether directly or indirectly, of the nature of the work performed shall be entitled to the compensation provided in this Chapter the same as if said laboratory technician received personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

As used herein, the phrase "laboratory technician" shall mean any person who, because of his skills in the technical details of his work, is employed in a place devoted to experimental study in any branch of the natural or applied sciences; to the application of scientific principles of examination, testing, or analysis by instruments, apparatus, chemical or biological reactions or other scientific processes for the purposes of the natural or applied sciences; to the preparation, usually on a small scale, of drugs, chemicals, explosives, or other products or substances for experimental or analytical purposes; or in any other similar place of employment.

Except as otherwise provided in this Subsection, any disability or death claim arising under the provisions of this Subsection shall be handled in the same manner and considered the same as disability or death claims arising due to occupational diseases.

D.  Any occupational disease contracted by an employee while performing work for a particular employer in which he has been engaged for less than twelve months shall be presumed not to have been contracted in the course of and arising out of such employment, provided, however, that any such occupational disease so contracted within the twelve months' limitation as set out herein shall become compensable when the occupational disease shall have been proved to have been contracted during the course of the prior twelve months' employment by a preponderance of evidence.

E.  All claims for disability arising from an occupational disease are barred unless the employee files a claim as provided in this Chapter within one year of the date that:

(1)  The disease manifested itself.

(2)  The employee is disabled from working as a result of the disease.

(3)  The employee knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the disease is occupationally related.

F.  All claims for death arising from an occupational disease are barred unless the dependent or dependents as set out herein file a claim as provided in this Chapter within one year of the date of death of such employee or within one year of the date the claimant has reasonable grounds to believe that the death resulted from an occupational disease.

G.  Compensation shall not be payable hereunder to an employee or his dependents on account of disability or death arising from disease suffered by an employee who, at the time of entering into the employment from which the disease is claimed to have resulted, shall have willfully and falsely represented himself as not having previously suffered from such disease.

H.  The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee or his dependent on account of an occupational disease for which he is entitled to compensation under this Chapter shall be exclusive of all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal representatives, dependents or relatives.

I.  Notice of the time limitation in which claims may be filed for occupational disease or death resulting from occupational disease shall be posted by the employer at some convenient and conspicuous point about the place of business.  If the employer fails to post this notice, the time in which a claim may be filed shall be extended for an additional six months.

Acts 1952, No. 532, §1; Acts 1958, No. 39, §1; Acts 1975, No. 583, §2, eff. Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1975, No. 644, §§1, 2; Acts 1980, No. 666, §§1, 2, eff. July 24, 1980; Acts 1989, No. 454, §2, eff. Jan. 1, 1990; Acts 1990, No. 943, §1; Acts 2001, No. 1189, §1, eff. June 29, 2001; Acts 2003, No. 733, §1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 302 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Graves v. Riverwood Intern. Corp., 949 So. 2d 576 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Graves v. Riverwood Intern. Corp., 949 So. 2d 576 (La. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 13× “R.S. 23:1031.1 (1952). The 1952 version of La.”
Brunet v. Avondale Indus., Inc., 772 So. 2d 974 (La. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 32× “APPLICABILITY OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW In our analysis, we find determinative the issue raised by Avondale in its Answer to Appeal, that plaintiff may not sue Avondale in tort because his illness is a covered occupational disease under LSA-R.S. 23:1031.1 as it was in effect…”
Arrant v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc., 169 So. 3d 296 (La. 2015). · cites it 16× “Because I find NIHL is neither a covered occupational disease under any version of La.Rev.Stat. § 23:1031.1, nor a personal injury by accident under any applicable version of the LWCA, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmation of the judgment of the court of appeal…”
Thornell v. Payne & Keller, Inc., 442 So. 2d 536 (La. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 13× “All claims for disability arising from an occupational disease are barred unless the employee files a claim with his employer within six months of the date that: (a) The disease manifested itself.”
Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 824 So. 2d 1137 (La. 2002). · cites it 4× “R.S. 23:1031.1 as amended in 1975, even though most of Gales' exposure predated the 1975 amendment.”
Coats v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 681 So. 2d 1243 (La. 1996). · cites it 7× “[*] We granted certiorari in this case to review the court of appeal's determination that the claimant (1) did not suffer an "accident" as defined in the worker's compensation statute and (2) failed to prove that she was disabled such that recovery under the provisions of…”
Terrance v. Dow Chem. Co., 971 So. 2d 1058 (La. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 7× “1 listed various occupational diseases that were covered by workers' compensation and also listed certain substances that, when they caused disease as a result of occupational exposure, that disease would also be covered by workers' compensation.”
Duplechain v. Gulf States Util. Co., 468 So. 2d 1386 (La. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 10× “After a trial on the merits, the trial court held that the claimant's condition constituted an occupational disease pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1031.1. But the trial court dismissed the claim on the ground that it is barred by the six-month peremptive period provided by LSA-R.”
Gautreaux v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 694 So. 2d 977 (La. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 12× “R.S. 23:1031.1. However, flour contains considerable quantities of oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon.”
Adams v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd., 914 So. 2d 1177 (La. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “R.S. 23:1031.1, which first provided workers' compensation coverage for occupational diseases, and dismissed the survival action of the plaintiffs, heirs of Walter Counts, on the grounds that workers' compensation provides the exclusive remedy.”
Lee v. Schumpert, 836 So. 2d 1214 (La. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “R.S. 23:1031.1 E. A hearing on the exception was held in June 2001.”
Schouest v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 411 So. 2d 1042 (La. 1982). · cites it 4× “R.S. 23:1031.1, disabilities arising from diseases contracted in the course of employment were handled as forms of "cumulative injury" by the judiciary to effect a just and equitable result.”
Show all 302 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(1): 2 cases
Duos v. Evangeline Par. Sch. Bd., 499 So. 2d 1067 (La. Ct. App. 1986).
Bynum v. Capital City Press, 655 So. 2d 489 (La. Ct. App. 1995).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(A): 35 cases
Frank v. Shell Oil Co., 828 F. Supp. 2d 835 (E.D. La. 2011).
Arrant v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc., 169 So. 3d 296 (La. 2015). “Because I find NIHL is neither a covered occupational disease under any version of La.Rev.Stat. § 23:1031.1, nor a personal injury by accident under any applicable version of the LWCA, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmation of the judgment of the court of appeal…”
Gautreaux v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 694 So. 2d 977 (La. Ct. App. 1996). “R.S. 23:1031.1. However, flour contains considerable quantities of oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon.”
Seal v. Gaylord Container Corp., 704 So. 2d 1161 (La. 1997).
McClure v. City of Pineville, 944 So. 2d 795 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(A)(1): 2 cases
Adams v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd., 914 So. 2d 1177 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “R.S. 23:1031.1, which first provided workers' compensation coverage for occupational diseases, and dismissed the survival action of the plaintiffs, heirs of Walter Counts, on the grounds that workers' compensation provides the exclusive remedy.”
Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065 (La. 2009).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(A)(1)(c): 1 case
Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065 (La. 2009).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(A)(1)(d): 1 case
Brunet v. Avondale Indus., Inc., 772 So. 2d 974 (La. Ct. App. 2000). “APPLICABILITY OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW In our analysis, we find determinative the issue raised by Avondale in its Answer to Appeal, that plaintiff may not sue Avondale in tort because his illness is a covered occupational disease under LSA-R.S. 23:1031.1 as it was in effect…”
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(A)(1)(g): 1 case
Brunet v. Avondale Indus., Inc., 772 So. 2d 974 (La. Ct. App. 2000). “APPLICABILITY OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW In our analysis, we find determinative the issue raised by Avondale in its Answer to Appeal, that plaintiff may not sue Avondale in tort because his illness is a covered occupational disease under LSA-R.S. 23:1031.1 as it was in effect…”
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(A)(1)(i): 1 case
Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065 (La. 2009).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(A)(3): 1 case
Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065 (La. 2009).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(A)(l)(c): 1 case
Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065 (La. 2009).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(A)(l)(d): 1 case
Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065 (La. 2009).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(A)(l)(g): 1 case
Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065 (La. 2009).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(B): 71 cases
Begue v. Crossover, Inc., 868 So. 2d 100 (La. Ct. App. 2003).
Duplechain v. Gulf States Util. Co., 468 So. 2d 1386 (La. Ct. App. 1985). “After a trial on the merits, the trial court held that the claimant's condition constituted an occupational disease pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1031.1. But the trial court dismissed the claim on the ground that it is barred by the six-month peremptive period provided by LSA-R.”
Lyle v. Brock Servs., LLC, 252 So. 3d 1010 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
Ceasar v. Crispy Cajun Restaurant, 643 So. 2d 471 (La. Ct. App. 1994).
Schmitt v. City of New Orleans, 632 So. 2d 367 (La. Ct. App. 1993).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(B)(4): 1 case
Schouest v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 411 So. 2d 1042 (La. 1982). “R.S. 23:1031.1, disabilities arising from diseases contracted in the course of employment were handled as forms of "cumulative injury" by the judiciary to effect a just and equitable result.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(C): 4 cases
Bates v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 266 So. 2d 556 (La. Ct. App. 1972).
Corley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 737 So. 2d 204 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
Bartie v. Zurich Am. Ins., 205 So. 2d 740 (La. Ct. App. 1967).
Boone v. Employers Mut. Liab. Ins., 152 F. Supp. 41 (E.D. La. 1957).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(D): 46 cases
Winborne v. Sanderson Farms, 971 So. 2d 342 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
Oliveaux v. Riverside Nursing Home, 691 So. 2d 340 (La. Ct. App. 1997).
Simmons v. Baumer Foods, Inc., 55 So. 3d 789 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 824 So. 2d 1137 (La. 2002). “R.S. 23:1031.1 as amended in 1975, even though most of Gales' exposure predated the 1975 amendment.”
Dibler v. Highland Clinic, 661 So. 2d 588 (La. Ct. App. 1995).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(E): 32 cases
Thornell v. Payne & Keller, Inc., 442 So. 2d 536 (La. Ct. App. 1983). “All claims for disability arising from an occupational disease are barred unless the employee files a claim with his employer within six months of the date that: (a) The disease manifested itself.”
LaCour v. Hilti Corp., 733 So. 2d 1193 (La. 1999).
Duplechain v. Gulf States Util. Co., 468 So. 2d 1386 (La. Ct. App. 1985). “After a trial on the merits, the trial court held that the claimant's condition constituted an occupational disease pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1031.1. But the trial court dismissed the claim on the ground that it is barred by the six-month peremptive period provided by LSA-R.”
Adams v. Sysco Food Serv. of New Orleans, 990 So. 2d 34 (La. Ct. App. 2008).
Edwards v. Sawyer Indus. Plastics, Inc., 647 So. 2d 449 (La. Ct. App. 1994).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(E)(a): 1 case
Naquin v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 456 So. 2d 665 (La. Ct. App. 1984).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(E)(c): 1 case
Price v. City of New Orleans, 672 So. 2d 1045 (La. Ct. App. 1996).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(F): 7 cases
Jonise v. Bologna Bros., 820 So. 2d 460 (La. 2002).
Marmino v. City of Crowley, 829 So. 2d 1117 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
Butler v. Jefferson Par. Fire Dep't, 186 So. 3d 1231 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
McDonald v. New Orleans Private Patrol, 569 So. 2d 106 (La. Ct. App. 1990).
Edwards v. Sawyer Indus. Plastics, Inc., 647 So. 2d 449 (La. Ct. App. 1994).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(H): 5 cases
Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 824 So. 2d 1137 (La. 2002). “R.S. 23:1031.1 as amended in 1975, even though most of Gales' exposure predated the 1975 amendment.”
O'REGAN v. Preferred Enter., Inc., 758 So. 2d 124 (La. 2000).
Bourgeois v. Green Indus., 841 So. 2d 902 (La. Ct. App. 2003).
Greene v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 682 F. Supp. 304 (M.D. La. 1988).
Arrant v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc., 127 So. 3d 924 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(I): 5 cases
Thornell v. Payne & Keller, Inc., 442 So. 2d 536 (La. Ct. App. 1983). “All claims for disability arising from an occupational disease are barred unless the employee files a claim with his employer within six months of the date that: (a) The disease manifested itself.”
LaCour v. Hilti Corp., 733 So. 2d 1193 (La. 1999).
Edwards v. Sawyer Indus. Plastics, Inc., 647 So. 2d 449 (La. Ct. App. 1994).
Mire v. Ranger Plant Const. Co., Inc., 835 So. 2d 550 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
Montreal Linn v. Ouachita Par. Police Jury, 383 So. 3d 1171 (La. Ct. App. 2024).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031.1(d): 1 case
Vincent v. City of New Orleans, 326 So. 2d 401 (La. Ct. App. 1976).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.