 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nakamura v. State9/26/2000
vant. Tate, 77 Hawaii at 107, 881 P.2d at 1253 (citations omitted).
The supreme court has explained that
he claimant must prevail if the employer fails to adduce substantial evidence that the injury is unrelated to employment. The term "substantial evidence" signifies a high quantum of evidence which, at the minimum, must be "relevant and credible evidence of a quality and quantity sufficient to justify a conclusion by a reasonable [person] that an injury or death is not work connected." Flor, Hawaii at , P.3d at (quoting Akamine 53 Haw. at 408-09, 495 P.2d at 1166).
With that said, the question before us is, did the Employer adduce substantial evidence to rebut the presumption that a causal connection existed between Nakamura's injury and his employment?
We conclude that Employer did not.
Nakamura claims he sustained stress-related depression and anxiety due to "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 counters that Nakamura's alleged work injury of September 15, 1995 resulted solely from the garnishment of his wages pursuant to a Notice of Levy filed by the IRS, an incident unrelated to work.
The Board indicated in its decision and order that it credited the medical opinions of two expert witnesses, Dr. Ponce and Dr. Shimizu, as well as "the description of the industrial injury in Dr. Shimizu's WC-2 reports, and Claimant's testimony that the garnishment was the 'last straw', to find that the IRS garnishment on September 15, 1995, exacerbated a pre-existing psychiatric condition on that date that prompted Claimant to leave work and seek treatment."
Dr. Shimizu's WC-2 Physician's Report of Nakamura's initial visit on September 15, 1995 describes the work-related "accident" as "garnishing of check without approval causing stress & depression." Dr. Shimizu's notes of that same visit fail to include reference to any job -related harassment.
However, Dr. Shimizu's notes of their meetings on September 28, 1995, October 6, 1995, October 18, 1995, November 2, 1995, November 9, 1995 and November 28, 1995 reflect Nakamura's discussion at each of chronic harassment at work and work-related stress. In particular, Dr. Shimizu's notes of October 18, 1995 reflect that Nakamura described the garnishing of his paycheck as "'the straw that broke the camel's back' culminating 3½ yrs. of accumulated harassment."
During the investigation of the claim, Employer arranged for Nakamura to meet with Dr. Danilo Ponce, M.D., on January 5, 1996, for an independent medical (psychiatric) evaluation. Dr. Ponce gleaned the following information, in pertinent part, from his interview with Nakamura:
Mr. Nakamura claims that this current (September 15, 1995) industrial injury claim is his fifth Workers' Compensation claim. The first claim was "sometime in 1983," a back injury at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, where he was unable to go to work for about a month. The second Workers' Compensation claim was reported around 1984/1985 as a result of a "thoracic disc" injury at Hickam Air Force Base, where he was off work for about a month. The third claim was in 1986/1987 at Hickam Air Force Base, again for a thoracic disc injury, where he was off for about a month. The fourth claim was in 1988 as a result of "stress" at Hickam Air Force Base, for which he was off work about three weeks.
[Nakamura] admits seeing Dr. Gordon Trockman, a psychiatrist, in 1988 because of the "stress" industrial injury claim at that time. During
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.
|
|