Igawa v. Koa House Restaurant2/2/2001
v. Hawaii Newspaper Agency, 89 Hawaii 411, 422, 974 P.2d 51, 62 (1999) (quoting Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan, 87 Hawaii 217, 229, 953 P.2d 1315, 1327 (1998) (quoting Konno v. County of Hawaii, 85 Hawaii 61, 77, 937 P.2d 397, 413 (1997) (quoting Bragg v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins., 81 Hawaii 302, 305, 916 P.2d 1203, 1206 (1996)))). Korsak v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, 94 Hawaii 297, 302, 12 P.3d 1238, 1243 (2000) (brackets in original).
In addition, the Hawaii Supreme Court has stated that
[appellate] review is "further qualified by the principle that the agency's decision carries a presumption of validity and appellant has the heavy burden of making a convincing showing that the decision is invalid because it is unjust and unreasonable in its consequences." Mitchell v. State, Dept. of Educ., 85 Hawaii 250, 254, 942 P.2d 514, 518 (1997) (citations omitted).
B. Statutory Interpretation.
he interpretation of a statute is a question of law reviewable de novo. Furthermore, our statutory construction is guided by established rules:
When construing a statute, our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primariliy from the language contained in the statute itself. And we must read statutory language in the context of the entire statute and construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose.
This court may also consider the reason and the spirit of the law, and the cause which induced the legislature to enact it . . . to discover its true meaning. HRS § 1-15(2) (1993). Korsak, 94 Hawaii at 303, 12 P.3d at 1244 (citations, ellipses, and quotation marks, omitted).
III. Discussion.
A. The Board Erroneously Concluded That Igawa Did Not Sustain Any Permanent Disability Attributable to His October 3, 1991 Work Injury.
Igawa undisputedly suffered a work injury on October 3, 1991. Igawa appeals the Board's conclusion that he did not sustain any permanent disability as a result of that work injury. HRS chapter 386 governs workers' compensation claims. HRS § 386-85(1) (1993) provides that " n any proceedings for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter it shall be presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary . . . hat the claim is for a covered work injury[.]" This presumption has been described as one of the "keystone principles" of our workers' compensation plan. Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 82 Hawaii 1, 22, 919 P.2d 263, 284 (1996) (Ramil, J., dissenting).
The Hawaii Supreme Court has construed "the use of the word 'any' to mean that the presumption applies in all proceedings conducted pursuant to the workers' compensation chapter. See Hough v. Pacific Ins. Co., Ltd., 83 Hawaii 457, 463, 927 P.2d 858, 864 (1996) (' n interpreting a statute, we give words their common meaning, unless there is something in the statute requiring a different meaning.')" Korsak, 94 Hawaii at 306, 12 P.3d at 1247.
Igawa's claim was filed under the workers' compensation chapter. The purpose of the proceeding before the Board was to determine the compensability of Igawa's PPD claim. Thus, pursuant to the plain language of the statute, the presumption applied in Igawa's PPD and disfigurement proceeding.
Consequently, the Employer had the burden to rebut the statutory presumption that Igawa suffered PPD as a result of his work injury:
"HRS § 386-85(1) creates a presumption in favor of the claimant that the subject injury is causally related to the employment activity. . . . his presumption imposes upon the employer both the heavy burden of persuasi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|