 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nakamura v. State9/26/2000
-existing condition, we find, based on Dr. Ponce's opinion and his review of Dr. Trockman's records, that Claimant was suffering from a pre-existing psychotic disorder that did not remit entirely since the 1989 discharge from regular to "as needed" treatment by Dr. Trockman.
23. Our finding that the IRS garnishment on September 15, 1995, was the event that triggered Claimant's need for treatment and inability to work is supported by the record.
The record shows that while Claimant may have experienced work stress as a result of conflicts with his supervisors, the bulk of that stress occurred while Claimant was working under Mr. Chung and Mr. Yoshioka prior to May of 1995. Claimant did not have trouble working under Henry Sakai between May and September 15, 1995. Claimant was disturbed when Mr. Yoshioka confronted him one day while he was working under Mr. Sakai, but other than that incident, Claimant did not describe any other incidents of work stress between May and September of 1995. The record shows that despite the work stress that Claimant 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.
24. The IRS garnishment was not an incident of Claimant's employment as a painter.
The Board crowned its findings of fact with the following conclusion of law:
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Claimant did not sustain a personal injury on September 15, 1995, arising out of and in the course of employment. The IRS garnishment is not an incident of Claimant's employment as a painter. Any psychiatric injury that occurred as a result of the garnishment, is, therefore, not related to Claimant's employment.
B. Procedural History.
On October 24, 1995, Employer filed form WC-1, Employer's Report of Industrial Injury , in which Employer denied liability for Nakamura's psychological stress injury. On December 11, 1995, Employer informed the DLIR Disability Compensation Division that Nakamura's compensation claim should be denied, and requested a hearing to address the issue of compensability.
On October 30, 1996, the DLIR Disability Compensation Division Director held a hearing on the matter, and on November 25, 1996, denied Nakamura's claim for compensation. In its Decision, the DLIR stated that
Claimant's psychiatric injury was clearly caused by IRS' garnishment of his wages effective September 15, 1995. . . . The employer should not be penalized or made liable for an employee's emotional distress or psychiatric injury arising from wages garnished as the employer was merely in compliance with IRS' Notice of Levy on Wages, Salary and Other Income dated August 25, 1995. Claimant's contention that his injury and disability were caused by management's harassment, abuse, threats, etc., between 1992 through 1995, is not supported by the medical records. The medical records were devoid of any complaints against management prior to or on September 15, 1995. . . .
On December 3, 1996, Claimant filed his notice of appeal of the Director's decision.
The Board held a hearing de novo on the matter on March 13, 1998. Nakamura appeared pro se.
On April 20, 1998, Dr. Shimizu submitted, on behalf of Nakamura, a medical report dated April 16, 1998, an MMPI profile performed by Dr. William Tsushima dated February 20, 1996 and a letter from the U.S. Department of Labor dated March 15, 1989. On that same day, Employer filed its objection to the submission of Dr. Shimizu's April 16, 1998 medical report.
On August 12, 1998, the Board filed an order striking D
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.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|