Jose Flores Moran v. Amtrust North America And Jacques-imo Cafe, Llc

NEWS RELEASE #046 FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE
FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the 20th day of October, 2023 are as follows:
PER CURIAM:
2023-C-00410 JOSE FLORES MORAN VS. AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA AND
JACQUES-IMO CAFE, LLC
WRIT GRANT RECALLED. WRIT DENIED. SEE PER CURIAM.
Weimer, C.J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons.
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
Genovese, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., concurs and assigns reasons.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NUMBER 2023-C-00410
JOSE FLORES MORAN
VERSUS
AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA AND JACQUES-IMO CAFÉ, LLC
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit,
Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 7
PER CURIAM
We granted plaintiff’s application for a writ of certiorari on June 21, 2023.
After considering the briefing and oral argument of the parties, the record , and the
applicable law, we conclude the judgment below does not require the exercise of this
court’s supervisory authority. Accordingly, we recall our order of June 21, 2023 as
improvidently granted, and we deny plaintiff’s writ application.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2023-C-00410
JOSE FLORES MORAN
VS.
AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA AND JACQUES-IMO CAFÉ, LLC
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit,
Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 7
WEIMER, C. J., concurring.
Although I respectfully disagree with the decision to recall the writ, I concur
because I ultimately reach the same result.
I have long concluded that recalling writs as improvidently granted is poor
practice. See, e.g., State v. Crandell, 05-1060 (La. 3/10/06), 924 So.2d 122
(Weimer, J., dissenting); Davis v. Prescott, 13-0669 (La. 11/5/13), 130 So.3d 849,
851 (Weimer, J., dissenting); George v. Dugas, 16-0710, p. 2 n.1 (La. 11/7/16), 203
So.3d 1043, 1043 n.1 (Weimer, J., dissenting); Mitchell v. State, 16-1097 (La.
1/25/17), 219 So.3d 1061 (Weimer, J. dissenting). Once this court has granted a writ,
spent time reviewing the record, required the parties to brief the issues and travel to
court to participate in oral argument, it is generally more prudent to address the issues
in an opinion. However, in this case, I must concur in the ultimate result based on the
underlying facts. Notably, this case presents as a worker’s compensation matter–not
a tort action. Thus, there is no authority for this court to grant the relief requested by
plaintiff.

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No.
2023-C-00410
J
OSE FLORES MORAN
VS.
AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA AND JACQUES-IMO CAFE, LLC
On W
rit of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Office of Workers'
Compensation, District 7
CR
ICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons:
I agree with the decision to recall the writ in this case, thereby letting the court
of appeal’s decision stand. I write separately to again highlight the pressing need
for legislative amendment in this area of the law. As I previously noted in Griggs v.
Bounce N’ Around Inflatables, 18-726 (La. 1/30/19), 281 So. 3d 628, 634 (Crichton,
J., additionally concurring), the legislature maintains the sole authority to expand the
workers’ compensation statutes to include exemption of minors from their
exclusivity. Once again, the employer in this matter will benefit from these statutes
despite its illegal conduct of hiring a minor. I again echo the words of Professor H.
Alston Johnson, III:
The legislature should decide whether loss of tort immunity is the
proper sanction for an employer who violates the Child Labor Law. If
so, this sanction should be specifically stated. If not, an appropriate and
specific sanction should be provided. In that process, one should not
lose sight of the concept that if a penalty is regarded as too harsh, it
might never be applied, even though some penalty of a lesser nature
would be. In other words, the sanction should fit the violation, or else
the violation might go unpunished.
H
. Al
ston Johnson, III, 13 La. Civ. L. Treatise, Workers' Compensation
Law and Practice § 53 (5th Ed.)
Th
e minor child in this case was hired at the age of thirteen and injured during
the performance of one of his job duties, which occurred when he was fourteen years
old: emptying boiling oil and grease from the kitchen’s deep fryer and transporting

that hot cooking oil down a stairwell. This resulted in second and third degree burns
to multiple parts of his body. See Moran v. AmTrust N. Am., 22-253 (La. App. 5 Cir.
3/1/23), 360 So. 3d 75, 77. Due to these significant injuries, any work he now
performs must be out of the sunlight due to the nature of his injuries, and he also
cannot be exposed to heat from a stove or oven or work in environments that are not
air-conditioned. Id.
Despite the seriousness of this injury, an employer in blatant and flagrant
violation of the Child Labor Laws has once more gained the advantage of the plain
language of a statute in desperate need of revision.

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No.
2023-C-00410
J
OSE FLORES MORAN
VS.
AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA AND JACQUES-IMO CAFE, LLC
On W
rit of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Office of Workers’
Compensation, District 7

Genovese, J., concurs in the result and assigns the following reasons.

Only because this matter comes before us as a workers’ compensation case,
and not a tort action, do I concur in the result; otherwise, I would have revisited
Griggs v. Bounce N’Around Inflatables, L.L.C., 18-0726 (La. 1/30/19), 281 So.3d
628, as that case was decided on particularized facts clearly distinguishable under
the facts in this case.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2023-C-00410
JOSE FLORES MORAN
VS.
AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA AND JACQUES-IMO CAFE, LLC
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Office of Workers’
Compensation, District 7
GRIFFIN, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Notwithstanding the Court’ s decision to recall the writ as improvidently
granted, Griggs v. Bounce N’ Around Inflatables, L.L.C., 18-0726 (La. 1/30/19), 281
So.3d 628, may require reassessment to avoid any further issues arising from La.
R.S. 23:1035 of the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act.