 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Potter v. Hawaii Newspaper Agency2/19/1999
ency's decision is a secondary appeal. The standard of review is one in which this court must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) [(1993)] to the agency's decision. This court's 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.
Bragg v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins., 81 Hawaii 302, 304, 916 P.2d 1203, 1205 (1996) (quoting University of Hawaii Professional Assembly v. Tomasu, 79 Hawaii 154, 157, 900 P.2d 161, 164 (1995)). HRS § 91-14(g) 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." HRS § 91-14(g) (1993). "Under HRS § 91-14(g), Conclusions of law are reviewable under subsections (1), (2), and (4); questions regarding procedural defects are reviewable under subsection (3); findings of fact are reviewable under subsection (5); and an agency's exercise of discretion is reviewable under subsection (6)." Bragg, 81 Hawaii at 305, 916 P.2d at 1206.
Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple, 87 Hawaii at 229, 953 P.2d at 1327 (quoting Konno v. County of Hawaii, 85 Hawaii 61, 77, 937 P.2d 397, 413 (1997)).
III. DISCUSSION
A. The "WC-1 Employer's Report Of Industrial Injury" Filed By The HNA Cannot Be Construed As A Claim For Benefits Filed On Potter's Behalf.
HRS § 386-82 (1993) provides in pertinent part that a "claim may be made by the injured employee or the employee's dependents or by some other person on the employee's behalf." In In re Cowan, 32 Haw. 928 (1933), this court construed the statute to mean that claims made on behalf of a minor must be made by "a `guardian' or `next friend' duly empowered to act for the minor." Id. at 935 (emphasis added). Therefore, even assuming that the HNA's "WC-1 Employer's Report of Industrial Injury," which ostensibly -- albeit belatedly by many months -- was filed pursuant to the requirements of HRS § 386-95 (1993), could be construed as a "claim" for benefits, the record contains no evidence that HNA had been "duly empowered to act" on Potter's behalf as required by this court's holding in Cowan.
Moreover, the HNA's argument that the filing of its "WC-1" could constitute a claim for workers' compensation benefits on Potter's behalf is disingenuous because it is inconsistent with the administrative scheme established by HRS ch. 386. HRS § 386-82 provides for a two-year period within which an employee must file a claim or be barred from doing so. Had the legislature intended the filing of the employer's report -- which must be completed within seven working days of the time the employer first learns of the injury pursuant to HRS § 386-95, see supra note 2 -- to constitute the filing of an injured employee's claim for benefits, the two-year filing period established by HRS § 386-82 woul
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.
|
|