Opinion ID: 2631806
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Intermediate Court of Appeals

Text: On appeal, Tamashiro argued that the Board erred by relying on non-medical opinions and, more generally, by declining to accept the opinions of Tamashiro's witnesses. [3] In the ICA's view, the overarching issue in the appeal was whether [the Employer] adduced substantial evidence . . . to overcome the presumption, under [HRS] § 386-85 (1993), that Tamashiro was totally disabled from August 5, 1994 up to July 15, 1995. Tamashiro, at 102, 34 P.3d at 32 (citing Chung v. Animal Clinic, Inc., 63 Haw. 642, 650-51, 636 P.2d 721, 727 (1981)) (footnote omitted). Accordingly, the ICA stated that we may affirm the Board's conclusion that Tamashiro was not temporarily totally disabled if it was supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that he was able, despite his March 30, 1994 work injury, to perform the usual and customary duties of an electrician for CSI during the time period in question. Tamashiro, at 103, 34 P.3d at 33. After reviewing the record, the ICA concluded that the net weight of the evidence before the Board amounted to substantial evidence. Tamashiro, at 104, 34 P.3d at 34. Furthermore, given that substantial evidence is contained in the record[,] the ICA held that the Board's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. Id. As a final step in its analysis, the ICA asserted that before we can affirm the Board's decision, Akamine[ v. Hawaiian Packing and Crating Co., 53 Haw. 406, 495 P.2d 1164 (1972),] requires that we take our analysis one step further, in order to determine whether any reasonable doubt exists regarding the question of compensability. Tamashiro, at 104, 34 P.3d at 34 (citation and footnote omitted) (emphasis in original). The ICA ultimately concluded that there was no reasonable doubt and affirmed the Board's May 4, 1999 decision and order. Id. at 29.