Igawa v. Koa House Restaurant8/30/2001
onclusion by a reasonable [person] that an injury or death is not work connected.'" Chung, 63 Haw. at 650, 636 P.2d at 726 (quoting Akamine, 53 Haw. at 408, 495 P.2d at 1166). In that regard, medical evidence "that a pre-existing [condition] may have been a contributing or precipitating cause of the [claimed disability] should be accorded little probative weight." Id. at 652, 636 P.2d at 728 (citing Akamine, 53 Haw. at 412, 495 P.2d at 1168).
Rather, " he primary focus of medical [evidence] for the purposes of determining legal causation should be whether the employment situation in any way contributed to the employee's injury." Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis added). If the evidence is substantial, the Board must "weigh and consider the evidence offered by the employer against the evidence offered by claimants supportive of the claim." Acoustic, 51 Haw. at 317, 459 P.2d at 544. Finally, if, as a result of the weighing, "there is a reasonable doubt as to whether an injury is work-connected, it must be resolved in favor of the claimant." Chung, 63 Haw. at 651, 636 P.2d at 727 (citing Akamine, 53 Haw. at 409, 495 P.2d at 1166). See also Survivors of Timothy Freitas, Dec. v. Pacific Contractors Co., 1 Haw. App. 77, 85-86, 613 P.2d 927, 932-33 (1980) (holding that "the [Appeals] Board's conclusion supported by substantial evidence which [left] no reasonable doubt as to whether [the claim] was work connected") (footnote omitted).
This reasonable doubt standard stems from "the humanitarian nature of the [workers compensation] statute [which] demands that doubt be resolved in favor of the claimant":
The legislature indeed has cast a heavy burden on the employer in workmen's compensation cases. In its wisdom in formulating public policy in this area of the law, the legislature has decided that work injuries are among the costs of production which industry is required to bear; and if there is reasonable doubt as to whether an injury is work-connected, the humanitarian nature of the statute demands that doubt be resolved in favor of the claimant. Akamine, 53 Haw. at 409, 495 P.2d at 1166.
As the foregoing passage points out, the "heavy burden" created by the statutory presumption in HRS ยง 386-85(1) embodies the legislature's judgment that "work injuries" should be treated as "among the costs . . . industry is required to bear." Id. Thus, this court directed that "if" a reasonable doubt exists as to the work-connected nature of the injury, it was mandated, i.e., "demand " by the statute that the issue "be resolved in favor of the claimant." Id. That reasonable doubt rule was confirmed in Chung, see 63 Haw. at 650-51, 636 P.2d at 727, and most recently reaffirmed in Korsak. See 94 Hawaii at 306, 12 P.3d at 1248.
Accordingly, the ascertainment of reasonable doubt is germane to every claim where substantial evidence has been adduced by the employer and work-relatedness is an issue. Inasmuch as its existence compels an outcome favoring the claimant, reasonable doubt is a "standard" to be applied in workers' compensation cases. See Black's Law Dictionary 1404 (6th ed. 1990) (defining "standard," inter alia, as "a measure or rule applicable in legal cases").
Findings and conclusions by an administrative agency in a contested case must be reasonably clear to enable the parties and the court to ascertain the basis of the agency's decision. See In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawaii 97, 157-58, 9 P.3d 409, 469-70 (citations omitted),reconsideration denied, 94 Hawaii 97, 9 P.3d 409 (2000); Hawaii Pub. Employment Relations Bd. v. United Pub. Workers, Local 646, 66 Haw. 461, 472, 667 P.2d 783, 791 (1983); In re Application of Hawaiian Tel. Co., 54 Haw.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|