Title: Arellano v. Pleasant Travel Service

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW UBRAKY

2
5
z

‘*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

No. 24980 a
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'IZS/Z

     

oats

ONESIHO ARELLANO, Clainant-Appeliant ER:
vs. 5

PLEASANT TRAVEL SERVICE, and PIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE CO.,>
Employer/Insurance Carrier-Appellee
ee

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD
(CASE NO. AB 98-648 (WH) (9-97-0894) )

‘SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)

 

Claimant-appeliant Onesimo Arellano (Arellano) appeals
from the February 11, 2002 order of the Department of Labor and
Industrial Relations (DLIR) Appeals Board (LIRAB), adopting, in
tote, Hearings Officer Jean Tanaka’s November 7, 2001 proposed
decision and order, which affirmed the DLIR Director’s

pecenber 9, 2998 decision to the extent that the Director awarded
Arellano (1) temporary total disability (TTD) benefits from

June 30, 1997 through May 13, 1998, and (2) 8% permanent partial
disability (PPD) of the whole person, with respect to his

June 26, 1997 work-related injury. On appeal, Arellano argues
that the LIRAB (1) violated his constitutional right to due
process by failing to issue a finding of fact (FOF) or provide an
explanation as to the specific “odd-lot” factors it considered,
4¢ any, in determining that he was not permanently and totally
disabled (PTD) under the Yodd-lot” doctrine, and (2) erred

considering his voluntary retirement in determining his
'*#* NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

entitlement to PPD benefits.

upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted and having given due consideration to the issues raised
and arguments advanced, we first hold that the LIRAB did not
violate Arellano’s constitutional right to procedural due process
by summarily finding that Arellano was not PTD under the “odd-
lot” doctrine, inasmuch as the testimonies presented by Arellano,
Priscilla Barcoma, and Martin Hudon, together with the LIRAS’s
unchallenged FOFs, namely FOF nos. 20, 22, and 26, more than
adequately apprise Arellano as to why he was not PTD under the

sodd-lot” doctrine. See Atchley v, Bank of Hawai'i, 80 Hawai'i
239, 909 P.2d 567 (1996); Yarnell v. City Roofing, Inc., 72 Haw.

272, 813 P.2d 1386 (1991); Zauchivama v, Kahului Trucking and
Storage, Inc., 2 Haw. App. 659, 638 P.2d 1381 (1982). due
process compels nothing more. We further hold that the LIRAB did
not “abruptly minimize” Arellano’s PPD rating by adversely
considering his voluntary retirement in determining his
entitlement to PPD benefits. Indeed, notwithstanding Arellano’ s
voluntary retirement, substantial evidence was adduced to support
the LIRAB’s conclusion that Arellano was @t PPD of the whole
person for his June 26, 1997 work-related injury, inasmuch as (1)

 

+ Agellano challenges finding of fact (FOF) no. 27, which provides:

27. We also find that (Arellano' s] work-related
permanent partial impairment does not combine with the odd
[or 'factors of age, education, and experience, to render hin
tb under the odd-Lot doctrine. Based on Dr. Direnfeld’ s
Gnrebutted opinion, we find that it Ls the non-work-related
psychosocial factors that have allegedly rendered [Arellano]
Unable to work. In addition, (Arellano] has taken himself
cut of the labor marker by his voluntary retirement on
Wovenber 22, 1398.

 

 
¥** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
Raymond Taniguchi, M.D., opined that, although he was not sure
whether Arellano would have any PPD, if he did, “it will not be a
major problem, probably St at the most,” (2) during Arellano’ s
independent medical evaluation (IME) with Lorne K. Direnfeld,
M.D. (Dr. Direnfeld), Dr. Direnfeld (a) reported that, although
“there [wa]s a probable causal relationship between [] Arellano’s
complaints of low back pain and the occupational injury reported
on 6/2{6]/97 . - . lolther factors contributing to the
persistence of [] Arellano’s symptom complex appear to be of a
psychosocial nature{,]” and (b) concluded that Arellano was
stable for rating and rated him 5% impairment of the whole
person, and (3) during Arellano’s second IME with Dr. Direnfeld,
Dr. Direnfeld (a) reported that (i) Arellano’s symptom complex
was not attributable to the effects of his June 26, 1997 work-
related injury, (ii) “psychosocial factors appear to have taken a
more prominent role and have likely contributed to delayed
recovery and prolonged disability[,]" (iii) Arellano reached
maximum medical improvement and was medically stable no later
than six months post-injury, and (iv) it was medically probable
Arellano could have returned to modified-duty no later than six
months post-injury, and (b) rated Arellano St impairment of the
whole person. See HRS § 386-32(b) (Supp. 2004); Nakamura ve
State, 98 Hawai'i 263, 47 P.3d 730 (2002). Therefore,

 
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the LIRAB’s February 11, 2002
order, from which the appeal is taken, is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 29, 2005.

on the briefs:
James Ireijo for Yt
Claimant -appellant .

insurance carrier-appellee