Title: Enos v. Elite Mechanical, Inc.

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

wo. 27029 F

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I. =

NORMAN P. ENOS, Claimant~Appellant,

 

ELITE MECHANICAL, INC., and EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANIES,
Enployer/Insurance Carrier-Appellee,

and

SPECIAL COMPENSATION FUND, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD
(CASE NO, AB 2002-433 (2-99-06954) )

SPO:

(By: Moon, ¢.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy JJ.)

In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant-Appellant

Norman P. Enos appeals from the November 29, 2004 decision and
order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (LIRA)
affirming in part and modifying in part the September 6, 2002
decision of the Director of the Department of Labor and
Industrial Relations (Oirector) awarding Enos temporary total
Gisability (TTD) and permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits.
On appeal, Enos contends that the LIRAB erred in determining that
he is not permanently and totally disabled (PTD) on either 2
medical or odd-lot basis. Specifically, Enos argues that: (1)
the LIRAB erred as 2 matter of law in (a) concluding that he

failed to make out a prima facie case that he was PTD on an odd-

qa
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAF REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
lot basis, and thus (b) failing to shift the burden to Insurance
Carrier-Appellee Eagle Insurance Companies (Eagle) and Employer-

Appellee Elite Mechanical, Inc. (Elite) [hereinafter

 

collectively, Elite) to show that appropriate employment exist
for Enos; (2) the LIRAB clearly erred in making certain findings
of fact and failing to make findings about other facts that would
support a finding of PTD; and (3) the LIRAB erred as a matter of
law in utilizing Enos’s medical capability to engage in Light
sedentary work as the test for whether he was PTD when it should
have assessed whether he had a reasonable prospect of finding
work in the normal labor market. Enos further asserts that his

psychiatric condition warrants greater than 15% PED of the whole

 

person, Elite counters that: (1) (a) the LIRAB did not clearly
err in determining that Enos had failed to establish a prima
facie case of PTD under the odd-let doctrine, and (b) therefore
the burden never shifted; (2) the LIRAB did not ery in finding
that Enos was not PTD either on @ medical or odd-lot basis; and
(3) the LIRAB did not err in determining Enos’s PPD benefits.
Appellee Special Compensation Fund (SCF) also argues that: (2)
there is substantial evidence in the record to support the
LIRAB’s finding that Enos is not PTD on an odd-lot basis; (2) the
LIRAS did not err in identifying or applying the legal standard
for “total disability” because it implicitly found that Enos had

@ reasonable prospect of finding work in the normal labor market?
   

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT' REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
and (3) the LIRAB’s overall PTD finding is not clearly exronéous
because it is supported by substantial evidence.

upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advocated and the issues raised, we hold as
follows:

(1) The LIRAB did not clearly err in finding that the
evidence did not place Enos prima facie within the odd-lot
category, and thus, the LIRAE did not err as a matter of law in
concluding that the burden to show appropriate employment did not .

shift to Elite. See Yarnell v, City Roofing, inc., 72 Haw. 272,

 

276, 613 P.2d 1386, 1389 (1991) (stating that it is a question of
fact as to whether a person prima facie falls within the odd-lot
category, but shifting the burden of proof is a question of law)
(citing Worker's Comp, Claim of Canon v, FHC Corp., 718 F.2¢ 879,
885 (Wyo. 1986)). The results of the functional capacity
evaluation (hereinafter, FCE], the opinions of Frank Izuta, M.D.,
John Endicott, M.D., and Anthony Mauro, M.D., that Enos was
capable of sedentary work for eight hours @ day, and the opinion
of Jon Streltzer, M.D., that Enos had only a mild psychological,
condition, combined with Enos’s young age, education, and
experience provide substantial evidence to support the LIRAB’s
finding. See Yarnell, 72 Haw. at 275, 813 P.2d at 1388 ("IE the

evidence of degree of obvious physical impairment, coupled with
 

+++ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
other facts such es clainant’s mental capacity, education,
training, or age, places claimant prima facie in the odd-lot
category, the burden should be on the employer to show that sone
kind of suitable work is regularly and continuously available to
the claimant.” (Citation omitted.)): see also Joawa v. Koa tiouse
Rests, 97 Hawai'i 402, 409-10, 38 P.3d 570, 577-78 (2001) ("It is
well established that courts decline to consider the weight of
the evidence to ascertain whether it weighs in favor of the
acninistrative findings, or to review the agency's findings of
fact by passing upon the credibility of witnesses or conflicts in
testimony, especially the findings of an expert agency dealing
with a specialized field.” (citation omitted.)); Steinbera ve
Hgahiio, 88 Hawai'i 10, 18, 960 P.26 1218, 1226 (1998) (“(AIn
appellate court will not pass upon issues dependent upon the
credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence.”
(Citation onitted.)). Thus, the LIRAB did not err as a matter of
law in determining that the burden was not on Elite to
demonstrate the existence of suitable employment;

(2) The LIRAB’s finding that Enos is not PTD on a
medical basis is supported by substantial evidence in the record,
including: (a) the results of the FCE, with which Dr. 12uta, pr,
Endicott, and Dr. Mauro all agreed, showing that Enos was capable
of sedentary, light work for eight hours a days and (b) Dr.

Streltzer‘s opinion that Enos was not psychiatrically disabled
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WES’

   

HAWAN REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
from work, but may have had motivational issues that prevented
him from returning to work, Implicit in these conclusions is the
view that there is a reasonable possibility that Enos could find
suitable work in the normal labor market. To remand under the
cixcunstances because the LIRAB did not recite the statutory
language would elevate form over substance. See HRS § 386-1
(1993) (defining “total disability” as “disability of such én
extent that the disabled employee has no reasonable prospect of
finding regular employment of any kind in the normal Labor
market”); Imre Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawai'i 443, “asa, 979 P.2d
39, $0 (1999) (“It is not the function of appellate courts to
second-guess the trier of fact where there is substantial

evidence in the record to support its conclusion.” (Citation

omitted.)); Protect Ala Wai Skyline v. Land Use & Controls Comm.
of City Council of City & County of Honolulu, 6 Haw. App. 540,

547, 735 P.24 950, 955 (1987) (“[T]he law does not require that
all the evidence put before an administrative agency must support
the agency’s findings. It is legally sufficient if the findings
are supported by the reliable, probative and substantial evidence
in the whole record.” (Citations omitted.)), overruled on other
grounds by GATRI v, Blane, 88 Hawai'i 108, 962 P.2d 367 (1998);
and
(3) The LIRAB did not err in finding that Enos’s

psychiatric condition warrants 158 PPD of the whole person
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

inasmuch as the opinions of Dr. Streltzer and Dr. Ronald Barozzi

Provide substantial evidence in support thereof. See Igawa, 97
Hawai'i at 409-10, 38 P.3d at 577-78; Protect Ala Wai Skyline, 6

Haw. App. at 547, 735 P.2d at 985,

‘Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the LIRAB’s November 29, 2004

decision and order is affirmed,

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai's,

on the briefs:

Lowell K.Y. Chun-Hoon
(of King, Nakamura, &

Chun-Hoon) for clainant-
appellant Norman P, Enos

Sidney J.¥. Wong and
Colette H. Gomoto

(of Wong 6 Oshima)

for enployer/insurance
carrier-appellee
Elite Mechanical, Inc.
and Eagle Insurance
Companies

 

Frances £. H. Lun,
Deputy Attorney General,
for appellee Special
Compensation Fund

october 27, 2006.
Tr
ESL
Pessstes Oy scree ree

gore

Gann €. aig +