Nakamura v. State9/26/2000
r. Shimizu's medical report dated April 16, 1998 and the letter from the U.S. Department of Labor dated March 15, 1989, because the medical reports deadline of January 16, 1998 and the discovery deadline of February 6, 1998 had both passed.
Also on August 12, 1998, the Board filed its decision and order affirming the Director's decision.
On September 11, 1998, Nakamura filed a Motion to Reopen with the Board on the basis that some of the Board's findings of fact and its conclusion of law were incorrect.
On September 14, 1998, the Board denied Nakamura's motion to reopen, finding that Nakamura had not presented any basis for reopening its August 12, 1998 decision and order.
On October 14, 1998, Nakamura filed a timely notice of appeal.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW.
Judicial review of administrative agency decisions, in particular the decisions of the Board, is governed by HRS § 91-14 (1993). Under HRS chapter 91, appeals taken from findings set forth in decisions of the board are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Thus, this court considers whether such a finding is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.
A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when (1) the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding, or (2) despite substantial evidence in support of the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. On the other hand, a conclusion of law is not binding on an appellate court and is freely reviewable for its correctness. Thus, this court reviews conclusions de novo under the right/wrong standard.
Bocalbos v. Kapiolani Medical Center, 93 Hawaii 116, 124-25, 997 P.2d 42, 49 (App. 2000) (footnote, citations, emphasis, brackets, ellipsis, internal quotation marks). HRS § 91-14(g) (1993) 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.
In addition, the Hawaii Supreme Court has stated that
[appellate] 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." Mitchell v. State, Dept. of Educ., 85 Hawaii 250, 254, 942 P.2d 514, 518 (1997) (quoting Sussel v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 74 Haw. 599, 608, 851 P.2d 311, 316, reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 857 P.2d 600 (1993); Bragg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 81 Hawaii 302, 304, 916 P.2d 1203, 1205 (1996)).
III. DISCUSSION.
A. The Board Improperly Denied Nakamura's Workers' Compensation Claim Because Employer Failed to Carry Its Burden of Demonstrating that Nakamura's Employment Did Not Contribute to His Injury .
The sole issue on appeal is whet
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|