 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bocalbos v. Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children3/9/2000
that it was this retainer and not the retainer from [Kamisugi], that [Roucis] repaired. We are unable to find, however, a specific reference in the record to confirm [Bocalbos's] contention that [Wong] provided her with a retainer in 1988, as part of his treatment of her [TMJD]. (Emphases added.)
Part of conclusion 3, related to finding 17, states:
e have found no evidence in the record on appeal to corroborate [Bocalbos's] contention that the retainer prepared by [Roucis] was a retainer from [Wong] for her TMJ dysfunction. (Emphasis added.)
On appeal, Bocalbos argues that she "saw [Roucis] for the repair of a 'retainer.' However, that appliance is not the same retainer that [Kamisugi] told he provided in 1978 after active lower arch orthodontic treatment was completed to upright a leaning molar." Employer argues that
n the 1970 , [Kamisugi] fitted [Bocalbos] with a retainer for her lower arch. . . . In March 1989, [Roucis] repaired [Bocalbos's] retainer. . . . The [Board] therefore correctly concluded that [Roucis] could only have repaired [Bocalbos's] retainer for her lower arch, a pre-existing condition. No other retainer, other than one fitted by [Kamisugi], was referenced in the records.
B.
We observe that there was evidence in the record supporting the contention that Roucis repaired the orthosis fabricated by Wong. At the April 3, 1995 hearing before the Board, Bocalbos testified the appliance repaired by Roucis was from Wong:
Q. And finally, you went to see [Roucis]?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. What was the -- what were the circumstances around the visit? [Roucis] . . . e's a dentist?
A. He's a dentist.
Q. Okay.
A. I guess he's like [Wong], an orthodontist because he said -- I got his name from [Wong who] said, since you have a splint on that you have to keep for a year or two, and you're on disability, . . . go and stay on the mainland if you have any trouble, go and see [Roucis], because he kind of knows my technique[. H]e studied a little bit under me. . . . hat's how I got hold of [Roucis.] So I was instructed by [Wong] to see [Roucis] if the retainer he made had any problems. And it broke, so I did.
Q. And so, in that -- you were living on the mainland, and you went to see [Roucis]?
A. And that retainer was night retainer to prevent my jaw from . . . collapsing. (Emphases added.)
Wong's referral of Bocalbos to Roucis for repair of "the retainer he [(Wong)] had made" was explained by Roucis's familiarity with Wong's "technique." There is no other explanation in the record for the referral to Roucis. Employer did not offer any direct evidence to show that the retainer about which Bocalbos testified was the one she used in 1978, as opposed to the appliance provided her by Wong in 1988. Bocalbos's testimony thus was unrebutted.
C.
Any confirmation or corroboration sought by the Board was provided by Bocalbos's motion to reopen the case. In her April 14, 1997 motion to reopen the case, Bocalbos pointed out that "there was never any focus or argument that in fact Wong did not fabricate some sort of device." She therefore requested that written statements from Wong and Roucis concerning the "retainer" be considered by the Board. In his statement, Wong wrote:
I fabricated a lower arch orthosis for [Bocalbos] in 1988 before she went to Colorado because she was having problems with the jaw dropping when she laid down. It is this same appliance that [Roucis] had to do an emergency repair and which he called a "retainer." (Emphases added.)
In corrobo
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|