 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Goers v. Dirty Dan's Hawaii2/5/2002
ul intention to injure another. Pursuant to HRS §386-3 (1993), we conclude that [Appellant] did not sustain a personal injury on October 19, 1992, arising out of and in the course of his employment.
That [Appellant's] injuries were inflicted by a third-party and not from his intended victim does not, in our view, take him out of the applicable statutory provision. Based on our reading of the statute, we conclude that it is sufficient that [Appellant's] injuries were incurred while he was wilfully inflicting injury upon another.
IV. QUESTIONS PRESENTED.
Appellant contends on appeal that the Board erred in concluding (1) that his injuries were incurred by his wilful intention to injure another, and (2) that his injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.
V. STANDARDS OF REVIEW.
Appeals from decisions and orders of the Board are governed by HRS § 91-14(g) (1993), which provides:
(g) Upon review of the record the court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case with instructions for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision and order if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, conclusions, decisions, or orders are:
1. In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; or
2. In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or
3. Made upon unlawful procedure; or
4. Affected by other error of law; or
5. Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
6. Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
"Under HRS § 91-14(g), conclusions of law are reviewable under subsections (1), (2), and (4); questions regarding procedural defects are reviewable under subsection (3); findings of fact are reviewable under subsection (5); and an agency's exercise of discretion is reviewable under subsection (6)." Potter v. Hawaii Newspaper Agency, 89 Hawaii 411, 422, 974 P.2d 51, 62 (1999) (citations and internal quotation marks and block quote format omitted).
" ppeals taken from [findings of fact] set forth in decisions of the [Board] are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard." Korsak v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, 94 Hawaii 297, 302-3, 12 P.3d 1238, 1243-44 (2000) (citations, internal block quote format and original brackets omitted). " his court reviews [conclusions of law] de novo, under the right/wrong standard." Tate v. GTE Hawaiian Telephone Co., 77 Hawaii 100, 103, 881 P.2d 1246, 1249 (1994) (citation omitted). "A [conclusion of law] that presents mixed questions of fact and law is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard because the conclusion is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. When mixed questions of law and fact are presented, an appellate court must give deference to the agency's expertise and experience in the particular field. The court should not substitute its own judgment for that of the agency." In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawaii 97, 119, 9 P.3d 409, 431 (2000) (citations, original brackets and internal quotation marks and block quote format omitted).
"[A finding of fact] or a mixed determination of law and fact is clearly erroneous when (1) the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding or determination, or (2) despite substantial evidence to support of the finding or determination, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." I
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|