 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Igawa v. Koa House Restaurant8/30/2001
663, 668, 513 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1973).
It cannot be discerned from the record whether the Board (1) applied the reasonable doubt standard, (2) focused on medical evidence which demonstrated that Claimant's employment incident contributed "in any way" to the disability and disfigurement, Chung, 63 Haw. at 652, 636 P.2d at 728 (citation omitted), and (3) discounted medical evidence that Claimant's pre-existing condition was a "contributing or precipitating cause of the [disability]." Id. (citation omitted).
The majority concedes that "the Board did not expressly address whether [Petitioner/Employer-Appellee Koa House Restaurant and Petitioner/Insurance Carrier-Appellee Pacific Insurance Company] had successfully adduced substantial evidence to overcome the presumption of compensability." Majority opinion at 18. There is no indication the Board properly appraised the medical evidence within the framework referred to supra, and gave effect to any reasonable doubt as to the causal relationship of the disability to the employment incident. The Board's decision and order is entirely devoid of a reference to any of the principles it is required to follow. In the absence of such references, we cannot be "assure[d of] reasoned decision making by the agency[.]" In re Application of Hawaii Elec. Light Co., 60 Haw. 624, 642, 594 P.2d 612, 623 (1973) (citations omitted). Cf. Survivors of Freitas, 1 Haw. App. at 85, 613 P.2d at 933 (stating that " n accordance with its responsibilities under [HRS §] 91-12, the Board should generally state whether or not it has in fact applied the presumption").
In such a context and without more, we cannot discharge our duties of judicial review. While we may defer to the Board's technical expertise in the area assigned to it, there can be no presumption that the Board applied the law correctly. To hold otherwise is an abdication of the power and responsibility allocated to us in the disposition of workers' compensation appeals.
HRS § 91-14(g) (1993), which governs appellate review of the Board's decisions, provides in pertinent part that " pon review of the record the court may . . . remand the case with instructions for further proceedings." Therefore, I would remand the case to the Board with instructions to apply the foregoing principles and to make the appropriate findings and conclusions.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|