 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nakamura v. State9/26/2000
kamura testified that Mr. Yoshioka drove him to another work site to discuss the matter, and that Mr. Yoshioka threatened him with bodily harm. The Board further found that Nakamura was "disturbed" by this encounter.
In light of the whole record, the fact that only one disturbing incident occurred during the last several months of Nakamura's employment fails to support a conclusion that the conditions of his employment did not aggravate or contribute to his psychological stress injury , particularly in light of the medical testimony and opinions credited by the Board.
Moreover, the Board acknowledged that Nakamura "may have experienced work stress as a result of conflicts with his supervisors," although "the bulk of that stress occurred while was working under Mr. Chung and Mr. Yoshioka prior to May of 1995."
The Board, in effect, assumed that Nakamura's complaints of work stress were valid. Yet, the Board failed to explicitly consider and determine the issue of exacerbation due to work-related stress, as required under Chung and Akamine. It appears the Board relied upon the dubious assumption that etiological factors necessarily manifest themselves immediately in completely disabling injury . Hence the Board's conclusion that "despite the work stress that [Nakamura] claimed began in April of 1992 and continued through September of 1995, he did not seek medical treatment and was able to work up through the date of the garnishment." And hence the Board's exclusive focus upon the triggering event of IRS garnishment.
Employer also argues that Nakamura did not make a formal report of harassment to Employer's campus security until "May 31, 1996, some eight months after he walked off the job [,]" and that "Captain Dawson, chief of Employer's campus security, in his memorandum regarding Claimant's visit to campus security, stated that he came away with the impression that Claimant 'was making his harassment complaint to get ready for an up coming Labor Board hearing.'"
Again, in light of the whole record, especially the medical testimony and opinions, Nakamura's delay in filing a report and Captain Dawson's skepticism do not amount to substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of a work-connected injury .
Employer has failed to present substantial evidence to rebut Dr. Shimizu's opinion that circumstances of Nakamura's employment contributed to his injury , and hence has failed to rebut the presumption of compensability.
Even if we were to ignore the specific facts and holdings of the governing Hawaii Supreme Court cases cited and discussed, their overarching principle, adumbrated at the beginning of our discussion, mandates that we reach the same conclusion. That overarching principle provides, quite simply, that any reasonable doubt as to compensability must be resolved in favor of the claimant. Flor at , P.3d at ; Chung, 63 Haw. at 651, 636 P.2d at 727; Lawhead, 59 Haw. at 560, 584 P.2d at 125; Akamine, 53 Haw. at 409, 495 P.2d at 1166.
The Board's own findings of fact, when subjected to that principle, must yield the conclusion of compensability.
The Board credited the medical opinions of Dr. Ponce and Dr. Shimizu. Both doctors agree that Nakamura suffered a pre-existing psychotic condition. Both doctors agree that the condition was in remission at least to some degree before Nakamura was hired by Employer. Both doctors agree that Nakamura still suffers from a psychiatric disorder, although Dr. Shimizu disagrees with Dr. Ponce that Nakamura presently suffers from a psychosis. Both doctors agree that Nakamura needs treatment for his psychological disorder.
However, Dr. Ponce identifies o
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.
|
|