 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nakamura v. State9/26/2000
occurred was not, in and of itself, sufficient to defeat the presumption of a work connection even though one physician attributed the heart attack to pre-existing arteriosclerosis and physical exertion from jogging, where another physician cited long work hours and other business-related stress as generating substantial mental and emotional stress linked to heart disease).
Therefore, evidence of Nakamura's pre-existing condition, without more, carries little probative weight under relevant precedent.
Dr. Shimizu's opinion established that Nakamura's psychiatric stress injury was exacerbated, at least in part, by the circumstances of his employment. If Nakamura's pre-existing condition was exacerbated in any wise by his employment conditions, the abundant Hawaii Supreme Court precedent previously cited concludes that a causal connection has been established.
For example, in discussing a workers' compensation claim for a heart attack, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that
t is legally irrelevant, in determining the question of work-connection, whether [claimant's] attack might have occurred at home, on the street or elsewhere while tending to his private affairs. The only consideration should have been whether the attack in fact was aggravated or accelerated by his work activity[.] Akamine, 53 Haw. at 413, 495 P.2d at 1169. See also Flor at, P.3d at .
The court in Chung, supra, similarly emphasized that " he primary focus of medical testimony for the purposes of determining legal causation should be whether the employment situation in any way contributed to the employee's injury ." Chung, 63 Haw. at 652, 636 P.2d at 728 (citation omitted and emphasis added).
In conformance with Akamine and Chung, Dr. Shimizu explicitly, directly and specifically addressed whether or not the employment situation contributed to Nakamura's injury . Because Dr. Ponce failed to similarly do so, his report did not amount to substantial evidence overcoming the presumption that the injury is related to the employment.
Even though the IRS garnishment undisputedly "triggered" his separation from employment, Nakamura presented evidence that the conditions of his employment, i.e., long-term stress due to conflict with his supervisors, contributed to his psychological stress injury . Accordingly, his treating physician opined that Nakamura suffered an employment-related injury. Indeed, Dr. Shimizu described the precipitating event of the wage garnishment as a "part of the whole injury."
Therefore, the Board's failure to properly apply the statutory presumption of compensability mandated by HRS ยง 386-85(1) was "clearly erroneous."
Aside from Dr. Ponce's report of Nakamura's pre-existing psychotic disorder, Employer also points to the testimony of some of Nakamura's co-workers that did not support his claims: "For example, Mr Hirazumi testified that Mr. Yoshioka did not threaten him with a gun. Tr. at 27, 80, 84. Mr. Dobashi recalled that Mr. Yoshioka yelled at all workers and did not single out Claimant. Tr. at 93-94."
However, other testimony was offered that generally supported the contention that there were "problems" related to Mr. Yoshioka's behavior, and that Mr. Yoshioka yelled, swore at, and threatened others around him.
Employer also asserts, and the Board found, that Nakamura "did not have trouble working under Henry Sakai between May and September 15, 1995."
However, it is undisputed, and the Board found, that at some point during the time Nakamura worked for Mr. Sakai, Mr. Yoshioka confronted Nakamura at his work site about a comment he had made to a co-worker.
Na
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.
|
|