Prof Paul Roth said he expected the Government to legislate its way around the Court of Appeal's finding, which this week determined workers should be paid by the hour on sleep shifts.
However he doubted it would amend legislation to take away the retrospective wage rights won, which he described as a "constitutionally repugnant" prospect.
"There is a strong distaste for legislative retrospectivity of any kind in our legal system."
Firefighters and ambulance personnel also slept while on shifts but were still paid, andthe finding established care workers were no different, Prof Roth said.
However, the IHC case set a precedent because emergency-service workers had got their night pay rates written into contracts, but the Court of Appeal's decision determined that was unnecessary as hourly pay was an automatic right.
To avoid community-care providers going broke - a "social catastrophe" - the Government would have to pick up the tab, but was then likely to change the law to ensure the extra costs were stalled, he said.
"It is entirely possible, and perfectly acceptable, for the Government to push through legislation that operates in a prospective manner. In that case, people's rights would alter only once the legislation came into force."
He did not expect to see the legislation until after this year's election, partly due to its controversial nature.
Three legal forums, the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court as well as the Court of Appeal, found in favour of the workers.
