 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Iddings v. Mee-Lee6/20/1996
ary for plaintiff, as a part of her duties, to enter the Intensive Care Module to subdue a violent patient.
9. In the course of subduing said patient, Plaintiff was injured as she was shoved against furniture which was within the Intensive Care Module in order to accommodate the overcrowded conditions within the unit.
10. Prior to October 12, 1991, Defendant MEE-LEE had been advised that excessive furniture within the Intensive Care Module posed a safety hazard, but Defendant MEE-LEE took no steps to remove the furniture or to reduce the patient population within the Intensive Care Module.
11. Defendant had the ability to control the patient population, as was evidenced by the fact that he caused said population to be reduced to within authorized numbers in anticipation of a hospital accreditation inspection, and, again, in anticipation of an inspection by the State Department of Health.
12. The actions of Defendant MEE-LEE in failing to take steps to provide for the safety of plaintiff IDDINGS and other staff members who were required to work within the Intensive Care Module with individuals who often were hostile and/or violent constituted negligence and/or willful and wanton misconduct on the part of Defendant MEE-LEE.
Subsequent discovery revealed that, at all times pertinent to the complaint, Dr. Mee-Lee had been an employee of the CMC and was not an independent contractor. Recognizing that her negligence claims against Dr. Mee-Lee would therefore be barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of HRS § 386-5 (1985), Iddings stipulated to dismiss her negligence claims against Dr. Mee-Lee with prejudice on November 5, 1993. However, the claims that were based upon Dr. Mee-Lee's alleged wilful and wanton misconduct were preserved. The stipulation for partial dismissal provided in pertinent part that "all claims that Plaintiff Barbara Iddings was injured as a result of Defendant Dennis Mee-Lee's alleged 'willful and wanton misconduct' remain. The phrase 'wilful and wanton misconduct' is used in this Stipulation in the same manner in which it is used in HRS § 386-8 and shall be interpreted accordingly."
On January 3, 1994, Dr. Mee-Lee filed a motion for summary judgment: (1) contending that Iddings's allegation that Dr. Mee-Lee intentionally allowed her to work in an unsafe working environment "is not sufficient to constitute the type of 'wilful and wanton misconduct' which is required to circumvent the exclusive remedy provision" of HRS § 386-5; and (2) asserting that "proof of an actual intent to injure is required to circumvent the exclusive remedy provision[.]" The circuit court agreed and granted Dr. Mee-Lee's motion by order filed February 8, 1994. This timely appeal followed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
On appeal, an order of summary judgment is reviewed under the same standard applied by the circuit courts. Summary judgment is proper where the moving party demonstrates that there are no genuine issues of material fact and it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. In other words, summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Heatherly v. Hilton Hawaiian Village Joint Venture, 78 Haw. 351, 353, 893 P.2d 779, 781 (1995) (brackets, quotation marks, and citations omitted).
III. Discussion
A. The Exclusivity Provisions of Hawai'i's Workers'
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|