Title: Chay v. State, Department of Education

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

Uwuprany

+1** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAN REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

No. 26496

   
 
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'I

JOSEPHINE $. CHAY, Claimant~Appellant,

aad

vs.

yaya L VHUGN

STATE OF HAWAI'I, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Enployer-Appellee, Self-Insured.

 

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD
(CASE NO. AB 2002-436 (2-98-40651))

(ey: Moon, €.3., ‘Levinson Nakayama, ‘Reobe, and Duffy, 33.)
Clainant-Appellant Josephine S. Chay ("Chay") appeals

from the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Bosra’ s!
(*appeais Board”) March 10, 2004 Decision and Order, which
concluded that she is entitled to benefits from Exployer~Appeliee
State of Hawai't, Department of Education (“Enployer") for twenty
percent permanent partial disability of the whole person, as a
result of the June 4, 1998 work injury, and # not permanently
totally disabled’ either medically, under Hawai'i Revised
statutes (“HRS”) § 386-31," of under the odd-lot doctrine.

 

Board Chairman Randall Y. Iuese and Board menber Carol K, Yamamoto
presided.

   

2 ans § (1993) defines total disability as “disability of such
fan extent that the disabled employee hes no reasonable prospect of finding
regsler enployzent of any Kind in the normal labor market.”

      

2 Rs § 386-31 (2993) provices, in pertinent part:
dn the case of the following injuries, the disability caused
thereby shell be deened permanent and total:
{a)"" the permenent and total loss ef eight in both eyes
(2) te ese of both feet at or before the ankle:

 

 

  

(3) he Jess of both hands at or above the wrist;

(4) the lees of one hand and one foot?

(5) An snsury to the spine resulting in permanent
ind complete parelyeis of both legs or beth arms

 

Gr one eg end one arm
‘+ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
On appeal, Chay argues that the Appeals Board erred
inasmuch as it: (1) found that her psychiatric impairment does
not render her medically permanently and totally disabled under
HRS § 386-31; (2) found that she is not permanently and totally
oi
findings regarding her psychiatric impairment, (b) not crediting

bled under the odd-1ot doctrine, based on (a) insufficient

 

a vocational expert's opinion that she is unemployable based on
her. age, presentation, and psychiatric impairment, and (c) the
finding that she retired because she lacked motivation, although
and (3)

 

her treating psychiatrist did not release her to wor!

 

(.-eontinved)

 
 

jes_the permanency and totality of the
‘be cetermined on the facts.

   

+ the odd-Lot doctrine may be invoked:

where an employee receives a work-related permanent partial
Gisability which combined withother factors such a= 296,
Saucation, experience, etc-, renders him, in fact, unable to
obtain employment, he’ is entitied to be treated as being
permanently totally disabled, It seems to be accepted chat the
employee has the burden of establishing prima facie that he falls
Within the odé-lot category.

 

  

fan vs Ks » 2 Haw. App. 659, 660-61, 638
Piza i381, 1982 (1982) (citation omitted)

* _ Technically, Chay failed to comply with Hawai'i Rules of Appellate
Procedure ("HEAP") Rule’ 26(b} (4) (C)y inasmoch az her points of error de not
quote the disputed finginge of fact. Employer contends that pursuant to HRAP
ule 26(b) (4) (C), this court must disregard Chay’s assertions that the Appesl®
Board erred in its findings. "See Morgan v. Elanning Dep't, County of Kauai,
206 Hawai's 173, 180, 86 P.3d 982, 989 (2004) ("Indeed, it is well settled
that failure to comply with HRAP Role 26(b) (4) is alone sufficient to sffirm
the circuit court's Judgment") (Relying on,
AOL Erods., #6 Hawai'i 214, 235, S¢8 F.2d 2058, 1076 (2597)-)~

Nevertheless, the disputed findings of fact are encompassed within
the points of error and argunent section of her opening brief. Therefore, Me
address the merits of Chay’s argunente, notwithstanding the technical
violation of HRAP Rule 26(B) (4) (C). See Schette vs Reliable Collection

, $6 Hawai'i 408, 420, 32 Pid 52, €€ (7001) {aGdressing the
merits of the issues on appeal despite WRAP Rule 28(b) (4) (c) violations, to
Support ** the policy of etfording’1itigente the opportunity te have their

heard on the merits, where possibie’™) (eltetions onitted) =

 

  

 

 

 

2
_— 222. NOT_FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER °° _
found that she is only twenty percent permanently and partially
impaired although it is not supported by the 2nd Edition of the
AMA Guides and her psychiatric condition.

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

(2) Chay is not medically permanently and totally
disabled, inasmuch as the substantial evidence in the whole
record, specifically, her testimony about her self-sufficiency
and the opinions of Dr. Slomoff and Dr. Tsushima, reflects that
she is not precluded from workin

 

(2) Based on substantial evidence in the whole record,
Chay is not permanently and totally disabled under the odd-lot
doctrine, and the Appeals Board properly (a) made sufficient
findings regarding the psychometric evidence of the extent of
Chay's psychiatric impairment,” (b) found that Chay's psychiatric
impairment did not render her unemployable based on substantial
evidence in the record, (c) did not credit Mizono’s opinion that
Chay was unemployable, inasmuch as it observed him testify and

found his opinion inconsistent with Dr. Slomoff’s; and (é) found

‘Soe Tansehire vs Control Snecialist, Incs, 97 Hawai'i 86, 92, 34
P.36 16, 22 [2001] ruling that when reviewing the Appeals Board's findings,
Nine creaibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony
within the province Of the trier of fact and, generelly, will not be disturbed
on appeal”)

 

 

1 60 Haw. 166,
Texplsining that an

fe basic facts, from
‘dete in terme of the statutory criterion are inferred .
1s cefinitely upen what besic facts the Conniseion reached
snd came to its decision")

    
 

(citations onittes)

 

   
+" NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
that she retired because she lacked motivation,* based on her
statements that she is “not interested in unskilled or semi-
skilled jobs”; and

(3) Chay is no more than twenty percent permanently and
partially disabled as a result of the June 4, 1998 work injury,
inasmuch as this level of psychiatric impairment is substantially
supported by the whole record. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appeals Board’s March 10,
2004 Decision and Order is affirmed in all respects.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, November 30, 2007.

on the briefs

Lowell K.¥. Chun-Hoon of Grr
King, Nakemure.¢ Chun-Hoon
fore

imant-appellant ’
Josephine S. Chay Bln

Janes E. Halvorson and re
Kathryn-Jean T.K. Taniguchi, » a a

Deputy Attorneys General,
for enployer-appellee,
State of Hawai'i,

Department of Education

 

 

+ see Atenley v. + 80 Hawes"s 239, 245, 909 F.36 S67,

873 (2996) (affirming the Bppeais Boare’s determination thet claimant, =
“highly educated, professicnal man with marueteble skills” was not. permanently
totally Gissbles' onder the cad-iet doctrine, in part because he wae not
working due to his “lack [of] interest”)

 

 

 

4