 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davenport v. City and County of Honolulu12/30/2002
port was directly injured while taking the test, his injuries would be clearly compensable. Here, however, Davenport's stress injury does not stem from taking the test itself, but from the alleged mis-scoring of his results. Although this situation appears two steps removed from the ultimate work, upon closer inspection, it is no less work-related than the activity in Pacheco and is incidental to the employment of a Honolulu firefighter.
In Pacheco we held that an injury sustained while cashing a paycheck during an authorized coffee break was compensable because the employer benefitted by having a refreshed and more productive employee. Although the cashing of the paycheck was not authorized, the general activity of taking a coffee break was not only permissible, but encouraged. In the present case, the Department derives a substantial benefit from having its own employees seek advancement within the Department. The promotion examination allows the Department an avenue for assessing its current firefighters to fulfill their employment needs rather than hiring outside the Department where the candidate has no history with the Department. Thus, the promotion process is an essential function of the Department, which depends on the application of current firefighters employed within the Department. Accordingly, an injury that stems from that process is incidental to the employment and results from an activity that serves an important interest of the Department. We therefore affirm the ICA's holding that Davenport's January 1994 injury is compensable.
B. April 10, 1995 Injury
With respect to Davenport's April 1995 hypertension injury , the ICA held that the Board was clearly erroneous in finding that Davenport's April 1995 injury was "psychological stress as a result of having to undergo a medical examination on April 10, 1995, while he was on disability for the . . . [Achilles tendon] injury." Davenport I, No. 23141, slip op. at 29. The Board then held that the injury was not work-related because it was caused by an examination conducted while Davenport was on leave.
In light of all the evidence on the record, we agree with the ICA that the Board's determination that the April 1995 injury was caused by the stress of undergoing a medical examination was clearly erroneous. On his WC-5 Form for the hypertension claim, Davenport described the injury as "stress--cumulative trauma and pain from industrial injuries[,]" and that the injury was "hypertension related to stress claim that has been denied pending investigation." Id. at 30. Davenport consistently argued on appeal that the injury originated from the Achilles tendon and related stress injuries, not that the hypertension was caused by the stress of the medical examination. Thus, it is clear that Davenport's hypertension injury, although diagnosed during an examination conducted on April 10, 1995, was not caused by that examination.
Second, the ICA held that the Board erred as a matter of law by failing to make any findings as to whether the April 1995 hypertension injury was the direct and natural result of the prior Achilles tendon and related stress injuries. "Generally, 'a subsequent injury, whether an aggravation of the original injury or a new and distinct injury, is compensable if it is the direct and natural result of a compensable primary injury.'" Davenport I, No. 23141, slip op. at 31.
The test for whether a subsequent injury is a direct and natural consequence of a compensable injury is: (1) whether any causal connection exists between the original and subsequent injury; and, if so, (2) whether the cause of the subsequent injury is attributable to some activity that would be customar
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|