 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davenport v. City and County of Honolulu12/30/2002
994 Injury
The Department alleges that the ICA erred in holding that psychological injuries deriving from non-disciplinary personnel actions arise out of and in the course of employment and are thus compensable under HRS ยง 386-3. We agree with the ICA's conclusion that Davenport's January 1994 injury is compensable. We find it necessary, however, to clarify the analysis of such claims and the application of our prior decisions in Mitchell, 85 Hawaii 250, 942 P.2d 514, and Tate v. GTE Hawaiian Telephone Co., 77 Hawaii 100, 881 P.2d 1246 (1994) to the present case.
1. The Board's Findings of Fact
The Board determined that Davenport's January 1994 injury "resulted from his involvement in the Civil Service administrative appeals process and not from the new fire chief's failure to honor the alleged promise of the chief's predecessor[.]" Board's Amended Decision at 9. On appeal to the ICA, Davenport argued that the Board's findings of fact regarding the cause of his January 1994 injuries were clearly erroneous. The ICA reversed the Board's determination, but did not address the cause of Davenport's injuries. Thus, it is necessary to clarify the source of Davenport's injury in order to determine the compensability of his claims.
We hold that the Board's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous because the record does not support a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made. The Board explained that based on the opinions of Dr. Trockman, Dr. Rogers, and Dr. Ponce, the written statements of [Davenport's] co-workers, [Davenport's answers to [the Department's] interrogatories, the fact that [Davenport's] promotion was reinstated in February of 1994, a month after the January 14, 1994 injury date, [Davenport's] continued pursuit of his Civil Service appeal beyond that date, despite the promotion, and the fact that he continued to experience emotional problems that required him to seek psychiatric treatment in October 1994, even though his promotion had already been restored many months before, we find that [Davenport's] January 14, 1994 psychological condition resulted from his involvement in the Civil Service administrative appeals process and not from the new fire chief's failure to honor the alleged promise of the chief's predecessor. Id. at 8-9.
Davenport himself attributed his stress injury to "a long series of administrative difficulties regarding promotion over the last several years[.]" Davenport I, No. 23141, slip op. at 8. Moreover, Davenport continued to pursue his appeal to the Commission despite the promotion and felt that the reinstatement of his promotion did not "erase the injustice" that was allegedly done to him while he was seeking to qualify for the promotion. Board's Amended Decision at 4. Dr. Rogers's report stated that " contributing factor to the build up of perceived stress over the years has been [Davenport's] dogged persistence in pursuing these [promotion and grievance] issues without compromise." Davenport I, No. 23141, slip op. at 7. Thus, the Board's finding that Davenport's injury stemmed from the Civil Service administrative appeals process and not from the Fire Chief's failure to honor the alleged promise to reinstate the promotion was based on substantial evidence and was not clearly erroneous.
Davenport also appeals the Board's finding that the alleged harassment and threats from the Fire Chief did not contribute to the injury. In its Amended Decision, the Board held that it was "unable to find that such harassment and threats, even if they occurred, contributed to [Davenport's] January 14, 1994 stress injury, because by [Davenport's] own account, the harassment and threats occurred after the Janua
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.
|
|