leave because the claim was not yet barred by the statute of limitations. Therefore, this claim could also have been re-filed without affecting the rights of the parties. In both cases, the amended complaint was considered filed because leave would have been granted had it been sought and no party would have been prejudiced if the formal requirements of requesting leave were bypassed. But that is not the situation here because HealthSouth would have been prejudiced if the court did not follow the formal requirements of Rule 15(a). Although it is true that upon re-filing leave would have been granted (as it was a week later), the loss of the affirmative defense of prescription would prejudicially affect HealthSouth. See Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging, Inc., 279 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir.2002)(<HOLDING>); Phillips v. III. Central Gulf R.R., 874 F.2d
holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense holding that the loss of a statute of limitations defense constitutes clear legal prejudice holding that trial court erred by granting a directed verdict on statute of limitations defense and remanding for a new trial on the statute of limitations only holding that the statute of limitations is nonjurisdictional and defendant expressly waived it observing in dicta that a statute of limitations defense should be raised no later than the trial holding that the loss of a statute of limitations defense prejudices a defendant