 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kawakami v. City and County of Honolulu12/24/2002
antially deviated from the scope of employment when he left work to embark on a personal errand, and, accordingly, was not capable of re-entering the scope of employment when the accident occurred. The Board specifically ruled:
We have found that the initial deviation was substantial in this case, based on the fact that Claimant, who had a fixed work schedule and a fixed workplace, was, at the time of the accident, outside the boundaries of his employment in terms of time and space, the number and nature of the personal activities engaged in by Claimant between his last work activity and the accident, and the fact that the deviation played a role in Claimant's injuries, because it was the deviation and not the work that brought Claimant to Waianae and to the site where the accident occurred. Given our finding of substantial deviation, we conclude that the 10:00 p.m. trip to Honolulu to return Employer's vehicle, which was delayed by at least seven hours, lost its business character and any work connection that the trip to return Employer's vehicle may have had was severed by the initial deviation.
The Board further held that, even assuming Kawakami had re-entered the scope of employment when he headed toward Honolulu to return the vehicle to BOWS, the accident occurred during a second deviation, commencing when Kawakami turned away from the direction of the baseyard to search for Onaga. Kawakami appealed the Board's decision, and oral arguments were heard on November 13, 2002. Upon carefully reviewing the record and briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we affirm the Board's decision to deny compensation.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Review of the Board's decisions is governed by HRS chapter 91 (1993). Findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Tate v. GTE Hawaiian Telephone Co., 77 Hawaii 100, 102, 881 P.2d 1246, 1248 (1994). Conclusions of law are not binding on an appellate court and are freely reviewable for correctness. Id. Thus, the de novo standard of review is applied to conclusions of law. Id.
IV. ANALYSIS
The issue of compensability of work-related accidents is governed by HRS § 386-3 (1993), which provided in relevant part:
Injuries Covered. If an employee suffers personal injury either by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment or by disease proximately caused by or resulting from the nature of the employment, the employee's employer or the special compensation fund shall pay compensation to the employee or the employee's dependents as provided in this chapter.
Accident arising out of and in the course of the employment includes the wilful act of a third person directed against an employee because of the employee's employment.
In all compensability cases, we are guided by the unitary test, which considers
whether there is a sufficient work connection to bring the accident within the scope of the statute. First articulated in Royal State National Insurance Co. v. Labor and Industrial Relations Appeal Board, 53 Haw. 32, 487 P.2d 278 (1971), the work connection approach simply requires the finding of a causal connection between the injury and any incidents or conditions of employment. Tate, 77 Hawaii at 103, 881 P.2d at 1249 (citations omitted).
The "unitary test" was formally adopted by this court in Chung v. Animal Clinic, Inc., 63 Haw. 242, 473 P.2d 561 (1970). In addition, HRS § 386-85 (1993) expressly provides a presumption in favor of employees that a claim for worker's compensation is compensable. Thus, to rebut the claim, an employer mu
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|