 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Igawa v. Koa House Restaurant2/2/2001
on and the burden of going forward with the evidence. Akamine, 53 Haw. at 408, 495 P.2d at 1166. The claimant must prevail if the employer fails to adduce substantial evidence that the injury is unrelated to employment. The term "substantial evidence" 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 conclusion by a reasonable man that an injury or death is not work connected." Id. at 408-09, 495 P.2d at 1166; Survivors of Timothy Frietas v. Pacific Contractors Co., 1 Haw. App. 77, 85, 613 P.2d 927, 933 (1980)." Korsak, 94 Hawaii at 307-08, 12 P.3d at 1248-49 (quoting Chung v. Animal Clinic, Inc., 63 Haw. 642, 650, 636 P.2d 721, 726).
In its Decision, the Board relied upon the reports of Drs. Nicholson and Bergmanis to find that Igawa did not sustain any permanent physical impairment as a result of his work injury. The Board also relied upon Dr. Bussey's report to find that Igawa did not sustain any permanent psychological impairment as a result of his work injury.
In his December 4, 1993 report, Dr. Nicholson wrote, "Basically, this man's examination is unremarkable." He believed that the prognosis for Igawa's "minor head injury should be excellent[,]" and opined that " here is no basis to relate any aggravation of the right frontal lobe lesion to the accident of October 3, 1991. Dr. Nicholson opined that, "If surgery is done, it is in no way related to the October 3, 1991 accident. . . . This man did work for six months following his October 3, 1991 injury, and there does not appear to be any physical reason why he could not have continued to work."
Furthermore, in his February 25, 1996 report, Dr. Nicholson wrote:
For purposes of a rating, it should be noted that this man's cyst was present prior to 1991, and a slight blow this man's head did not cause the cyst. The cyst documented and diagnosed prior to 1991. This man's headaches, in my opinion, have been on the basis of a psychological or nonorganic basis. He now has headaches in spite of having surgery.
Dr. Bergmanis, Dr. Anderson, and this examiner are all in agreement that the October, 1991 injury was a minor injury of no significance. This man does not have any ratable impairment referable to the October, 1991 incident.
Dr. Sakoda's rating is completely inconsistent with the injury.
There is absolutely no evidence that this man injured his neck in the October, 1991 incident.
There is absolutely no relationship [between possible right carpal tunnel syndrome as discussed by Dr. Sakoda and the October 3, 1991 injury]. Clinically he does not have a carpal tunnel syndrome in any case.
In his April 22, 1994 report, Dr. Bergmanis opined that Igawa "incurred a mild, rather non-specific head injury in the work-related incident of 10/3/91." Dr. Bergmanis' review, dated October 30, 1991, of a CT scan of Igawa's head indicated a "small peripherally located cyst in the right frontal region" which appeared consistent with old trauma and did not contain evidence of fresh bleeding within it.
Dr. Bergmanis conceded that Igawa "had a scalp injury and even these minor injuries can lead to prolonged post-traumatic headaches[,]" but opined that his headaches "are greatly aggravated by pre-existing current psychological and stress factors as already documented." Dr. Bergmanis characterized Dr. Hosobuchi's diagnosis of "cryptic arteriovenous malformation" as "mere speculation. Cerebral angiography is the only study that conceivably could throw some light on this problem, although some of the malformations are so small as not to be seen on any te
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|