 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Igawa v. Koa House Restaurant2/2/2001
R>
We do not accept Dr. Shepard Ginandes' permanent psychiatric impairment rating report dated February 26, 1996, because his history of Claimant's work injury and consequences stemming from the work injury are inconsistent with the minor nature of work injury.
18. Claimant has an 8-1/2" hypopigmented surgical scar on the forehead, as a result of his surgery.
19. Because the Director had determined that Claimant's surgery was related to his work injury, Employer was ordered to pay for the surgery. Liability for the surgery, however, is not an issue on appeal.
20. On appeal, Employer does not dispute Claimant's entitlement to compensation for his surgical scar. Employer only seeks a reduction in the amount of the Director's disfigurement award.
21. We find that Claimant is entitled to $850.00 for his disfigurement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. We conclude that Claimant did not sustain any permanent disability attributable to his October 3, 1991 work injury, because Claimant's work injury was a minor head trauma which would not have resulted in any permanent impairment either on a physical or psychiatric basis.
2. We conclude that Claimant is entitled to $850.00 for disfigurement.
On April 28, 1999, Igawa filed his notice of this appeal.
II. Standards of Review.
A. Agency Decisions.
Judicial review of administrative agency decisions, in particular the decisions of the Board, is governed by HRS § 91-14 (1993). Under HRS chapter 91, appeals taken from findings set forth in decisions of the board are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Thus, this court considers whether such a finding is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.
A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when (1) the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding, or (2) despite substantial evidence in support of the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. On the other hand, a conclusion of law is not binding on an appellate court and is freely reviewable for its correctness. Thus, this court reviews conclusions de novo under the right/wrong standard. Bocalbos v. Kapiolani Medical Center, 93 Hawaii 116, 123-24, 997 P.2d 42, 49-50 (App. 2000) (brackets, citations, footnote, ellipsis, emphasis, and internal quotation marks omitted).
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14(g) (1993) provides:
Upon review of the record the court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case with instructions for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision and order if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, conclusions, decisions, or orders are:
(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; or
(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or
(3) Made upon unlawful procedure; or
(4) Affected by other error of law; or
(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
(6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
"Under HRS § 91-14(g), [COLs] are reviewable under subsections (1), (2), and (4); questions regarding procedural defects are reviewable under subsection (3); [FOFs] are reviewable under subsection (5); and an agency's exercise of discretion is reviewable under subsection (6)." Potter
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.
|
|