 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nakamura v. State9/26/2000
Claimant-appellant Bruce Nakamura (Nakamura) appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board's (the Board) August 12, 1998 Decision and Order, that affirmed the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR) Disability Compensation Division Director's November 25, 1996 Decision denying workers' compensation benefits for Nakamura's psychological stress injury. Nakamura, pro se, alleges that he sustained a psychological stress injury on September 15, 1995, as a result of "'long term inhumane treatment as in unjust harassment game playing [without] solution in long history of [management] problems. Last incident involved the State's participation of wage garnishment[.]'"
Employer-appellee State of Hawaii, University of Hawaii (Employer), contends that workers' compensation benefits were properly denied because a psychological stress injury resulting from its compliance with an IRS levy did not arise out of and in the course of Nakamura's employment, and therefore is not covered under Hawaii's workers' compensation statutes.
We vacate and remand for determination of the amount of compensation in favor of Nakamura because Employer failed to produce substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of compensability established by Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) ยง 386-85(1).
I. BACKGROUND.
A. The Board's Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law.
The Board made the following findings of fact in its August 12, 1998 decision and order:
1. In April of 1992, Claimant was hired by STATE OF HAWAII, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII [Employer] to work as a painter's helper.
2. Claimant initially joined a work crew that was supervised by Danny Chung. Claimant had trouble working under Mr. Chung. Claimant felt discriminated against when Mr. Chung extended his probationary period and gave him an unsatisfactory job performance evaluation. Claimant felt pressured and uncomfortable while working for Mr. Chung.
3. Claimant complained to the union about Mr. Chung. Because of his complaints, Claimant was transferred to another work crew that was supervised by Ron Yoshioka. Claimant was warned that he may clash with Mr. Yoshioka because of their personalities, but Claimant insisted on the transfer.
4. Claimant developed difficulties while working under Mr. Yoshioka. Claimant complained that Mr. Yoshioka frequently swore and yelled at him, threatened him with bodily harm, taunted him, and berated him in front of others. Mr. Yoshioka apparently swore and yelled at almost everyone around him. Claimant complained about Mr. Yoshioka to the union.
5. Because of Claimant's complaints about Mr. Yoshioka, Claimant was transferred again to work under another supervisor, Henry Sakai. The transfer to Henry Sakai occurred in or around May of 1995.
6. Claimant did not have any problems working under Mr. Sakai between May and September of 1995. However, on one day, while he was working under Mr. Sakai, Claimant had an encounter with Mr. Yoshioka, who came to Claimant's job site that day to confront him about a comment that Claimant had made to a co-worker about Mr. Yoshioka. According to Claimant's testimony, he was painting a restroom near the music building on campus, when Mr. Yoshioka appeared and accused him of causing trouble. Claimant testified that Mr. Yoshioka then drove him to another work site to discuss the matter. Claimant stated that after Mr. Yoshioka drove him back to the music building, Mr. Yoshioka threatened to shoot him with his gun. Claimant testified that he was disturbed by Mr. Yoshioka's threat of bodily harm.
7. Claimant further testified that even when he was w
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|