Opinion ID: 2631806
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonable Doubt Analysis

Text: Finally, the ICA erred by utilizing a reasonable doubt analysis to the question of whether Tamashiro was TTD. After finding substantial evidence and concluding that the Board's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, the ICA stated: However, before we can affirm the Board's decision, Akamine requires that we take our analysis one step further in order to determine whether any reasonable doubt exists regarding the question of compensability. (Footnote omitted, emphasis in original.) A review of Akamine reveals the ICA's error. In January 1968, Edward K. Akamine collapsed at work. Akamine, 53 Haw. at 415, 495 P.2d at 1165. He was taken to Queen's Medical Center and pronounced dead due to acute coronary insufficiency. Id. On appeal, this court considered whether the insurer adduced substantial evidence to overcome the section 386-85(1) presumption that Akamine's death due to acute coronary insufficiency was work-connected. Id. at 407-08, 495 P.2d at 1165-66. The court explained that if there is reasonable doubt as to whether an injury is work-connected, the humanitarian nature of the statute demands that doubt be resolved in favor of the claimant. Id. at 409, 495 P.2d at 1166 (emphasis added). Thus, a plain reading of Akamine indicates that the reasonable doubt analysis, like the section 386-85(1) presumption, applies solely to the work-connectedness of an injury. See also Korsak, 94 Hawai`i at 308, 12 P.3d at 1249 (citing Akamine for the proposition that all doubts as to whether the claimant's back condition was due to pre-existing causes must be resolved in favor of the claimant); Chung, 63 Haw. at 651, 636 P.2d at 727 (citing Akamine for the proposition that where there is a reasonable doubt as to whether an injury is work-connected, it must be resolved in favor of the claimant); DeFries v. Ass'n of Owners, 999 Wilder, 57 Haw. 296, 305-306, 555 P.2d 855, 861 (1976) (explaining that the `pervading doubt' as to the cause of Akamine's heart attack indicated the absence of substantial evidence to overcome the section 386-85(1) presumption). In this case, and as discussed in section III.A., supra, the work-connectedness of Tamashiro's injury was not an issue on appeal. The Employer conceded at all stages of these proceedings that the injury to Tamashiro's shoulder arose out of and in the course of his employment. See HRS § 386-3. The Employer simply disputed Tamashiro's claim that, as a result of the injury, he was unable to resume work. Accordingly, the ICA erred in its interpretation and application of Akamine and by utilizing a reasonable doubt analysis under the facts of this case.