 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Crespin v. A&B;Hawaii9/22/2004
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
In this workers' compensation case, Jose M. Crespin, Jr. (Crespin) appeals the October 11, 2002 order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (the Board). The Board's order adopted, in toto, the August 23, 2002 proposed decision and order, authored by the Board's hearings officer, that affirmed the March 22, 2001 decision of the Director of Labor and Industrial Relations. The decision and order adopted by the Board ultimately stated: "We conclude [Alexander & Baldwin Hawaii, Inc. dba Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Co. (Employer)] has presented substantial evidence to overcome the presumption that [Crespin] sustained a left shoulder injury as a compensable consequence of his work injury of September 13, 1998."
After a diligent review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and giving careful consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we conclude that Employer did not present substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of compensability promulgated in Hawaii Revised Statutes ยง 386-85(1) (1993), because we view the doctors' reports touted by Employer and relied upon by the Board, "as failing expressly, directly, and specifically to rebut the presumption because the reports did not address whether [Crespin's left shoulder injury] could have, in any way, been exacerbated [by his work activity]." Korsak v. Hawaii Permanente Med. Group, Inc., 94 Hawaii 297, 308, 12 P.3d 1238, 1249 (2000) (emphases omitted). See also Nakamura v. State, 98 Hawaii 263, 269, 47 P.3d 730, 736 (2002). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the October 11, 2002 order of the Board is vacated and the cause is remanded for determination of the workers' compensation benefits due Crespin for his left shoulder injury.
|