 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davenport v. City and County of Honolulu12/30/2002
ized process conducted in all respects outside of the work milieu by a separate agency. In the many, perhaps majority, other instances in which promotions and their related grievances are settled at work, while at work, the Tate analysis cuts keenly in the opposite direction. We see no fair or reasoned basis for denying compensation in the former instance while bestowing it in the latter. To do so would be to decide compensability on the mere--and in this context, immaterial--serendipity of the particular administrative apparatus involved. Davenport I, No. 23141, slip op. at 28.
We disagree with the ICA's conclusion that applying Tate will lead to inconsistent results by precluding compensation for injuries arising out of external personnel procedures while allowing recovery for similar injuries originating from internal personnel actions. The same "unitary" test should be applied to both situations, and, in either case, the court must analyze whether the activity that gave rise to the promotion or demotion is related to the method of accomplishing or incidental to the ultimate work. Thus, how the promotion or grievance is handled or who handles it bears no relevance to the issue of compensability.
4. Application of the "Unitary" Test
In applying the unitary test to the present case, we must look at the activity that gave rise to the injury . The Board held that Davenport's injury stemmed from "his involvement in the Civil Service administrative appeals process." Davenport I, No. 23141, slip op. at 13-14. More specifically, Davenport's injury resulted from the failure of the Personnel Department to take into account his education credits in determining his ranking on the FFIII list of eligibles and his frustration with pursuing his grievance with the Commission regarding the fairness of the promotion process.
A firefighter's voluntary effort to obtain a promotion is not essential to the ultimate duties of a firefighter and does not fall within the box of injuries that are clearly compensable. Thus, we must determine whether the injury sustained under these circumstances is "incidental" to the duties of a firefighter.
The issue of whether an employee's voluntary effort to seek promotion is incidental to employment has not been decided by this court and remains a developing area of worker's compensation law.
When employees, by undertaking educational or training programs, enhance their proficiency in the work, they do in a sense benefit the employer. On the other hand, self-improvement is primarily the employee's own concern. Obviously the ambitious clerk who is burning the midnight oil studying to become an accountant cannot expect workmen's compensation if the lamp blows up. In some situations, however, it may be found that, either by the contemplation of the contract or by custom, the educational activity is part of the employment. Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 27.03 (1999).
In resolving the confusion over the compensability of purely psychological injuries stemming from non-disciplinary personnel actions, some state legislatures have amended their statutes to exclude such injuries from coverage. See Larson's § 56.04 (providing a list of statutes denying coverage for emotional injuries resulting from bona fide personnel actions). As the ICA pointed out, however, our legislature contemplated joining this trend, but decided against it in declining to address personnel actions in its amendment to section 386-3. It is well-established in Hawaii that chapter 386 is social legislation that is to be interpreted broadly. See Royal State, 53 Haw. at 37-38, 487 P.2d at 281-82; Mitchell, 85 Hawaii at 257, 942 P.2d at 521. "The l
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.
|
|