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

La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1209 (2026)

Prescription; timeliness of filing; dismissal for want of prosecution

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

§1209. Prescription; timeliness of filing; dismissal for want of prosecution

           A.(1) In case of personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, all claims for payments shall be forever barred unless within one year after the accident or death the parties have agreed upon the payments to be made under this Chapter, or unless within one year after the accident a formal claim has been filed as provided in Subsection B of this Section and in this Chapter.

           (2) Where such payments have been made in any case, the limitation shall not take effect until the expiration of one year from the time of making the last payment, except that in cases of benefits payable pursuant to R.S. 23:1221(3) this limitation shall not take effect until three years from the time of making the last payment of benefits pursuant to R.S. 23:1221(1), (2), (3), or (4).

           (3) When the injury does not result at the time of or develop immediately after the accident, the limitation shall not take effect until expiration of one year from the time the injury develops, but in all such cases the claim for payment shall be forever barred unless the proceedings have been begun within three years from the date of the accident.

           (4) However, in all cases described in Paragraph (3) of this Subsection, where the proceedings have begun after two years from the date of the work accident but within three years from the date of the work accident, the employee may be entitled to temporary total disability benefits for a period not to exceed six months and the payment of such temporary total disability benefits in accordance with this Paragraph only shall not operate to toll or interrupt prescription as to any other benefit as provided in R.S. 23:1221.

           B. Any claim may be filed with the assistant secretary, office of workers' compensation, by delivery or by mail addressed to the office of workers' compensation. The filing of such claims shall be deemed timely when the claim is mailed on or before the prescription date of the claim. If the claim is received by mail on the first legal day following the expiration of the due date, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the claim was timely filed. In all cases where the presumption does not apply, the timeliness of the mailing shall be shown only by an official United States postmark or by official receipt or certificate from the United States Postal Service made at the time of mailing which indicates the date thereof.

           C. All claims for medical benefits payable pursuant to R.S. 23:1203 shall be forever barred unless within one year after the accident or death the parties have agreed upon the payments to be made under this Chapter, or unless within one year after the accident a formal claim has been filed with the office as provided in this Chapter. Where such payments have been made in any case, this limitation shall not take effect until the expiration of three years from the time of making the last payment of medical benefits.

           D. When a petition for compensation has been initiated as provided in R.S. 23:1310.3, unless the claimant shall in good faith request a hearing and final determination thereon within five years from the date the petition is initiated, that claim shall be barred as the basis of any claim for compensation under the Worker's Compensation Act and shall be dismissed by the office for want of prosecution, which action shall operate as a final adjudication of the right to claim compensation thereunder.

           Amended by Acts 1975, No. 583, §7, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts 1983, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 1, §1, eff. July 1, 1983; Acts 1985, No. 884, §1; Acts 1985, No. 926, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986; Acts 1988, No. 938, §1, eff. July 1, 1989; Acts 1989, No. 260, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1990; Acts 2008, No. 220, §8, eff. June 14, 2008; Acts 2012, No. 783, §1, eff. August 1, 2012.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 610 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1951–2025 · leading case: Falgout v. Dealers Truck Equip. Co., 748 So. 2d 399 (La. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Falgout v. Dealers Truck Equip. Co., 748 So. 2d 399 (La. 1999). · cites it 44× “After considering the language in the statutes, the legislature's purpose in enacting the Workers' Compensation Act and the history of La.”
Jonise v. Bologna Bros., 820 So. 2d 460 (La. 2002). · cites it 33× “23:1209 to apply to claims for medical expenses is that under such an interpretation it would be possible for a disabled worker's claims for medical expenses to prescribe before he could assert them. The instant case is exemplary. Under La.”
Boquet v. Tetra Tech., Inc., 839 So. 2d 13 (La. 2003). · cites it 20× “R.S. 23:1209 is clear and unambiguous and requires a finding that when medical benefits have been paid, the time limitation for making additional claims for medical benefits is three years from the last payment of medical benefits.”
Lester v. S. Cas. Ins. Co., 466 So. 2d 25 (La. 1985). · cites it 9× “R.S. 23:1209 and rendered judgment dismissing Lester's demands against Willett and Southern.”
Calvin Arrant v. Wayne Acree Pls, Inc. & Louisiana Workers' Comp. Corp., 187 So. 3d 417 (La. 2016). · cites it 9× “R.S. 23:1209, the pur *425 poses are well established: (1) to enable an employer to determine when his-«potential liability for an accident would cease; (2) to prevent suits based on stale claims where evidence might be destroyed or difficult to produce; and (3) to fix a statute…”
Rich v. Geosource Wireline Servs., Inc., 490 So. 2d 1165 (La. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 14× “If any party rejects the recommendation of the office, the employee or his dependent shall present within sixty days of the receipt of the recommendation or within the period established by R.S. 23:1209, whichever occurs last, a verified petition to the district court which…”
Tulane Univ. Hosp. & Clinic v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 70 So. 3d 988 (La. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “R.S. 23:1209(0 applies here. We agree. In Touro Infirmary v.”
TIG Ins. Co. v. Louisiana Workers' Comp. Corp., 22 So. 3d 981 (La. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 18× “R.S. 23:1209, any claim TIG had against LWCC for contribution was prescribed.”
Scott v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 851 So. 2d 1210 (La. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “R.S. 23:1209. In June 1996, Mrs. Scott began working as a cashier.”
Est. of Ehrhardt v. Jefferson Par. Fire Dep't, 108 So. 3d 1223 (La. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 14× “INTERVENOR’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In intervenor’s assignment of error, he argues that by defendant’s payment of funeral expenses, the three year prescriptive period provided in LSA-R.S. 23:1209(0 6 was interrupted. 117Intervenor contends that funeral expenses constitute “medical…”
Craig v. Bantek West, Inc., 885 So. 2d 1234 (La. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “1985), which held that the ten-year prescription of Civil Code article 3499 applies to actions under the Louisiana workers' compensation law for which R.S. 23:1209 provides no specific prescriptive period.”
Shailow v. Gulf Coast Soc. Servs., 166 So. 3d 1239 (La. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 13× “R.S. 23:1209(0, which interrupted prescription as to Gulf Coast, a solidary obligor.”
Show all 610 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1209(0): 11 cases
Rebel Distributors Corp. v. Luba Workers' Comp., 144 So. 3d 825 (La. 2013).
St. Tammany Par. Hosp. v. Trinity Marine Prods., Inc., 91 So. 3d 985 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
Richard J. Borja v. Fara St. Bernard Par. Gov't, 218 So. 3d 1 (La. 2016).
Jones v. City of New Orleans, 20 So. 3d 518 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
Est. of Ehrhardt v. Jefferson Par. Fire Dep't, 108 So. 3d 1223 (La. Ct. App. 2013). “INTERVENOR’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In intervenor’s assignment of error, he argues that by defendant’s payment of funeral expenses, the three year prescriptive period provided in LSA-R.S. 23:1209(0 6 was interrupted. 117Intervenor contends that funeral expenses constitute “medical…”
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1209(2): 2 cases
Richard J. Borja v. Fara St. Bernard Par. Gov't, 218 So. 3d 1 (La. 2016).
Green v. Town of Lake Arthur, 255 So. 3d 1169 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1209(4): 1 case
Eugene-Robinson v. E. Jefferson Gen. Hosp., 237 So. 3d 93 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1209(A): 129 cases
Jonise v. Bologna Bros., 820 So. 2d 460 (La. 2002). “23:1209 to apply to claims for medical expenses is that under such an interpretation it would be possible for a disabled worker's claims for medical expenses to prescribe before he could assert them. The instant case is exemplary. Under La.”
Calvin Arrant v. Wayne Acree Pls, Inc. & Louisiana Workers' Comp. Corp., 187 So. 3d 417 (La. 2016). “R.S. 23:1209, the pur *425 poses are well established: (1) to enable an employer to determine when his-«potential liability for an accident would cease; (2) to prevent suits based on stale claims where evidence might be destroyed or difficult to produce; and (3) to fix a statute…”
Scott v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 851 So. 2d 1210 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “R.S. 23:1209. In June 1996, Mrs. Scott began working as a cashier.”
Jackson v. Domtar Indus., Inc., 732 So. 2d 733 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
LaCour v. Hilti Corp., 733 So. 2d 1193 (La. 1999).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1209(A)(1): 6 cases
Johnson v. Nw. La. War Vets. Home, 246 So. 3d 681 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
Butler v. Jefferson Par. Fire Dep't, 186 So. 3d 1231 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
Manning v. PFG-Caro Foods, 71 So. 3d 981 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
Paul v. Jefferson Par. Pub. Sch. Sys., 121 So. 3d 190 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
Dupuis v. Avoyelles Par. Corr. Ctr., 258 So. 3d 35 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1209(A)(2): 14 cases
Neese v. Papa John's Pizza, 44 So. 3d 321 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
Menard v. Iberia Par. Sheriff's Off., 77 So. 3d 1090 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
TIG Ins. Co. v. Louisiana Workers' Comp. Corp., 22 So. 3d 981 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 23:1209, any claim TIG had against LWCC for contribution was prescribed.”
Albert v. Air Prods. & Chemicals, 186 So. 3d 743 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
Johnson v. Nw. La. War Vets. Home, 246 So. 3d 681 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1209(A)(3): 13 cases
Putman v. Quality Distrib., Inc., 77 So. 3d 318 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
Crockerham v. Weyerhaeuser Holden Wood Prods., 223 So. 3d 533 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
Shailow v. Gulf Coast Soc. Servs., 166 So. 3d 1239 (La. Ct. App. 2015). “R.S. 23:1209(0, which interrupted prescription as to Gulf Coast, a solidary obligor.”
Gregoire v. Louisiana Dep't of Wildlife & Fisheries, 92 So. 3d 932 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
Eugene-Robinson v. E. Jefferson Gen. Hosp., 237 So. 3d 93 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1209(A)(4): 1 case
Crockerham v. Weyerhaeuser Holden Wood Prods., 223 So. 3d 533 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1209(A)(8): 1 case
Shailow v. Gulf Coast Soc. Servs., 166 So. 3d 1239 (La. Ct. App. 2015). “R.S. 23:1209(0, which interrupted prescription as to Gulf Coast, a solidary obligor.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1209(A)(l): 1 case
Myra Lisa Wellons, Individually & as the Rep. of the Est. of Jason Wellons, Megan Wellons v. Valero Refining-New Orleans, L.L.C. (Tex. App. 2020).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1209(B): 2 cases
Palermo v. Morrison Cafeteria, 648 So. 2d 1071 (La. Ct. App. 1994).
Huffman v. Idora, Inc., 603 So. 2d 267 (La. Ct. App. 1992).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1209(C): 57 cases
Boquet v. Tetra Tech., Inc., 839 So. 2d 13 (La. 2003). “R.S. 23:1209 is clear and unambiguous and requires a finding that when medical benefits have been paid, the time limitation for making additional claims for medical benefits is three years from the last payment of medical benefits.”
Tulane Univ. Hosp. & Clinic v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 70 So. 3d 988 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “R.S. 23:1209(0 applies here. We agree. In Touro Infirmary v.”
Calvin Arrant v. Wayne Acree Pls, Inc. & Louisiana Workers' Comp. Corp., 187 So. 3d 417 (La. 2016). “R.S. 23:1209, the pur *425 poses are well established: (1) to enable an employer to determine when his-«potential liability for an accident would cease; (2) to prevent suits based on stale claims where evidence might be destroyed or difficult to produce; and (3) to fix a statute…”
Est. of Ehrhardt v. Jefferson Par. Fire Dep't, 108 So. 3d 1223 (La. Ct. App. 2013). “INTERVENOR’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In intervenor’s assignment of error, he argues that by defendant’s payment of funeral expenses, the three year prescriptive period provided in LSA-R.S. 23:1209(0 6 was interrupted. 117Intervenor contends that funeral expenses constitute “medical…”
Bracken v. Payne & Keller Co., Inc., 970 So. 2d 582 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1209(D): 10 cases
Piper v. Shakti, Inc., 856 So. 2d 144 (La. Ct. App. 2003).
Bellard v. Seale Guest House., 829 So. 2d 1080 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
Jones v. City of New Orleans, 20 So. 3d 518 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
Bruce v. Becnel, 747 So. 2d 647 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
Clark v. Cookies, 809 So. 2d 514 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
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.