 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kawakami v. City and County of Honolulu12/24/2002
en because, as in Corden, Kawakami deviated from his employment but re-entered its course and scope when he began the trip back to the baseyard to return the BOWS vehicle. The present case, however, is distinguishable from Corden because Kawakami had no discretion as to when he could return the vehicle. In Corden, the employee had discretion over the rental cars and set his own working hours. Corden, 52 Haw. at 243, 473 P.2d at 562. His job required him to drive cars to Kahului to be exchanged. It was undisputed that Cordon was driving in the direction of his home when the accident occurred. Whether he exchanged the Datsun that night or the following morning was entirely within his discretion. Thus, Cordon was performing his job duty by driving the car home and did not deviate from his employment because he was allowed to set his own work hours. In the present case, Kawakami was not authorized to take the BOWS vehicle halfway across the island from Kaaawa to Waianae for a personal trip that lasted seven hours.
Our holding is also consistent with our decision in Chung. In Chung, we compensated an employee for a heart attack, which occurred after-hours and off-premises while the employee was jogging. We held that the
he work-connection approach rejects the necessity of establishing temporal, spatial, and circumstantial proximity between the injury and employment. Instead, focusing on the injury's origin rather than the time and place of its manifestation, the work-connection approach simply requires the finding of a causal connection between the injury and any incidents or conditions of employment. . . . he pertinent nexus is a causal, as opposed to a temporal or spatial one." Chung, 63 Haw. at 648, 636 P.2d at 725 (quoting 1A Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 29.22 (1979)).
Kawakami maintains that the Board erred by holding that Kawakami's injuries are not compensable on the ground that, "at the time of the accident, he was outside the boundaries of his employment in terms of time and space[.]" The fact that Kawakami's injuries occurred beyond the scope of his employment both temporally and spatially are but two factors in determining overall work-relatedness. Our holding in Chung does not prohibit the consideration of these factors. Moreover, there is absolutely no nexus between visiting a girlfriend halfway around the island and the work of a BOWS supervisor. Thus, the deviation itself fails the unitary test.
B. Kawakami's Other Claims
Because we hold that Kawakami's injuries are not compensable under the substantial deviation doctrine, we need not address his remaining claims on appeal.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board's holding that Kawakami's injuries are not compensable because he substantially deviated from the course of his employment by driving the BOWS vehicle halfway around the island to a girlfriend's house on a trip that lasted seven hours. This deviation constituted a total abandonment of his work, and, thus, he could not re-enter the scope of his employment upon embarking on a trip to return the BOWS vehicle.
DISSENTING OPINION OF ACOBA, J.
I respectfully dissent, inasmuch as I believe the presumption that the work injury was covered in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 386-85 (1993) governs and was to be applied in deciding the case of Claimant-Appellant Richard S. Kawakami (Claimant) as in every other worker compensation case. Because the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (Board) failed to apply this presumption and instead applied a special categorical rule, I would remand the case to the Board for application of the presumption.
<
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.
|
|