Title: Mishima v. Holiday Mart, Inc.

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW use

 

/* NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
Wo. 24888

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'T

eee

SANDRA S. MISHINA,
Claimant-Appellant,

HOLIDAY MART, INC.
Employer-Appellee,

and

oad

HAWAII INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION,
Insurance Carrier-Appellee.

 

94:6 HY he AV SUE

eee

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD
(Case No. AB 90-692 (2-77-19564))

98:
(gy: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba and Duffy, JJ.)

‘The clainant-appellant Sandra S. Mishima appeals from
the decision and order, filed on January 10, 2002, of the Labor
and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (LIRAB).

on appeal, Mishima contends that the LIRAB erred in:
(2) “not enforcing the settlement agreement reached between the
parties”; (2) “not enforcing prior decisions (that] the 1977

[AInjury permanently aggravated (Mishima]’s back”; and (3) "not
recognizing [the] relation between back and psychiatric
components of (Mishima]’s 1977 injury” (emphases omitted) .
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 affirm the
LIRAB’s January 10, 2002 decision and order for the following

reasons:
 

#46 NOP FOR PUBLICATION
(2) The LIRAB correctly denied Mishima’s October 9,
2001 motion for summary judgment. Of the five arguably probative
exhibits attached to her motion, only Herbert Takahashi's January
31, 2001 declaration attests to Gilbert Kurata’s behavior at the
moment of alleged contract formation. Moreover, the only
evidence therein of Kurata’s state of mind was Takahashi’
statenent that “Kurata agreed to the terms of (Takahashi’s)
proposal for settlement.” This statement amounts to Takahashi’ s
legal conclusion that Kurata “agreed,” without any factual
support. Accordingly, as LIRAB Chairman Randall Iwese implied,
Mishina’s exhibits, viewed in a light most favorable to the
clainant-appellee Holiday Mart, Inc. and the insurance carrier-

Hawaii Insurance Guaranty Association (hereinafter,

 

appelli
collectively, “the Appellees”], did not foreclose “genuine
issue[(s)] as to any material fact and [show] that (Mishima wals

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law” with respect to the

alleged formation of a settlement. Cf. Poe v. Hawai'i Labor
Relations Bd., 87 Hawai'i 191, 196, 952 P.2d 569, 574 (1998).

(2) Notwithstanding the director's finding in the 1981
decision that Mishima was permanently and totally disabled (PTO),
the 1981 decision also provided that, “{pJursuant to (Hawai'i
Revised Statutes (HRS) § 386-21 (Supp. 1979)], [the Appellees]
shall pay for such medical care, services and supplies as the
nature of the [1977 injury) may require” and not, as Mishima
asserts, that the Appellees would remain liable in perpetuity for
treatments to (2) Mishima’s back, and (b) any correlative malady.

(Emphases added.) Moreover, the director's use of the language
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
“{plursuant to [HRS § 386-21]” implies that Mishima was entitled
to “medical care, services and supplies” “furnish[ed]” by the
Appellees only “so long as reasonably needed.” See HRS § 386-21.
‘The language of the decision shows that the director contemplated
a future date when treatment might run its course, and that
Mishima’s concededly PTD status was independent of her need for
‘medical care, services and supplies.”* In sum, the LIRAB did
not need to give collateral estoppel effect to the director's
1981 decision inasmuch as the practical effect of that decision
“was subject to modification by its own terms or by applicable
law, and events have occurred subsequent to the [1961 decision}
that warrant modification of the contemplated kind.” See
Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 73(1) & cmt. a (1980 & Supp.
2005).

(3) Mishima attempts to argue that, even if this court
affirms the LIRAB’s findings of fact (FOFs) that her “back
condition was psychosomatic,” her 1977 injury is still
compensable “[g]iven the interrelatedness between [her] back
condition and her psychiatric condition.” Construing Mishima’s
position as liberally as possible, she could be arguing that,

because (a) the aggregate effect of her back condition and her

 

mental illness renders her unable to work, and (b) her back
condition continues to aggravate her mental illness, the

Appellees must continue to provide care for her back condition.

 

Furthermore, Hawaii's workers’ compensation law, HRS ch. 366,
mentions “permanent total disability” only in the context of an employer’ s
Teoponsibility te continue a percentage of weekly wages, not open-ended and
TEEeeiSite extenses for ali future trestment or Fehabititation for any and all
SGesequent conditions, See HRS $§ 306-31, ~33, ~38, 51 (1993 € Supp, 2000).

3
 

#44 NOP FOR PUBLICATION *
Mishina apparently presupposes that her current back
condition was caused by the 1977 injury. To the contrary, the
LIRAB‘s uncontested FOFs? indicate that “(1]umbar spine x-rays in
1987 and 1989, and the CAT scans in 1986 and 1990, have all been
negative. . . . Dr. Kam, Dr. Hector, Dr. Watanabe, and Or.
Eliashof have all indicated that [Mishima]’s ongoing low back
non~ ci ." (Emphasis

added.) In light of uncontroverted evidence, the factual premise

 

of Mishima’s argument is fatally flawed. Therefore,
IP 18 HEREBY ORDERED that the decision and order fron
which the appeal is taken is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, May 4, 2006.

on the briefs:
Rebecca L. Covert, of
‘Takahashi, Masui @ Vasconcelos,

for the claimant-appellant

Sandra S. Mishima Stara heloer

Wayne W. H. Wong,
for the employer-appellee dence Ole ae
Holiday Mart, Inc.
and the insurance
carrier-appellee Hawaii
Insurance Guaranty Association

me Oasys Ors

 

2 Mishima rebuts the applicability of the LIRAB’s 1990 FOFS on
colleters: estoppel grounds, but Faises no substantive challenge