Igawa v. Koa House Restaurant8/30/2001
courts decline to consider the weight of the evidence to ascertain whether it weighs in favor of the administrative findings, or to review the agency's findings of fact by passing upon the credibility of witnesses or conflicts in testimony, especially the findings of an expert agency dealing with a specialized field. In re Application of Hawaiian Elec. Co., Inc., 81 Hawaii 459, 465, 918 P.2d 561, 567 (1996) (quoting In re Application of Hawaii Electric Light Co., 60 Haw. 625, 629, 594 P.2d 612, 617 (1979)).
Therefore, we will not pass upon the doctors' relative credibility.
Giving due deference to the Board's expertise in this area, we hold that there are no grounds upon which to reverse the Board's ruling that Claimant did not sustain any permanent impairment as a result of a work-related injury. Because we hold that the ICA erred in reversing the Board's denial of PPD benefits, we do not reach Employer's remaining argument that the ICA improperly reversed certain Board findings that were not at issue on appeal.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the ICA's opinion in part and affirm it in part. We affirm the Board's denial of PPD benefits to Claimant.
OPINION OF ACOBA, J., CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART
I agree that the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 386-85(1) (1993) presumption that the "claim is for a work covered injury" applies to the determination of permanent partial disability and disfigurement benefits. See Korsak v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, 94 Hawaii 297, 306, 12 P.3d 1238, 1247 (2000) (stating that "the use of the word 'any' [in HRS § 386-85(1)] . . . mean that the presumption applies in all proceedings conducted pursuant to the workers' compensation chapter") (citation omitted). However, even giving "due deference to the [Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals] Board's expertise," majority opinion at 22, the record does not disclose that the Board appropriately decided the case. Thus, I would remand the case for application of the principles that follow.
HRS § 386-85(1) "creates a presumption in favor of the claimant that the subject injury is causally related to the employment activity." Chung v. Animal Clinic, Inc., 63 Haw. 642, 650, 636 P.2d 721, 726-27 (1981) (footnote omitted). The "presumption imposes upon the employer both the heavy burden of persuasion and the burden of going forward with the evidence." Id. at 650, 636 P.2d at 726 (citing Akamine v. Hawaiian Packing & Crating Co., 53 Haw. 406, 408, 495 P.2d 1164, 1166 (1972)).
To the extent the presumption imposes a "heavy burden of persuasion" upon the employer, id. (citation omitted), it is evidentiary in nature and the presumption itself is enough to establish prima facie evidence of the causal relationship. Thus, in determining whether the "injury," i.e., the permanent disability and disfigurement claimed in the instant case, is causally related to the employment of Respondent/Claimant-Appellant Darryl Igawa, the Board must begin with the proposition that "coverage presumed at the outset[.]" Id. at 651, 636 P.2d at 727.
The Board next must determine "whether evidence adduced by the employer is substantial[.]" Acoustic, Insulation & Drywall, Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Appeal Bd., 51 Haw. 312, 317, 459 P.2d 541, 544 (1969). "Substantial evidence" describes the quantum and quality of evidence which the employer must marshal to overcome the presumption. See Akamine, 53 Haw. at 408, 495 P.2d at 1166.
It "signifies a high quantum of evidence which, at the minimum, must be 'relevant and credible evidence of a quality and quantity sufficient to justify a c
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|