Davenport v. City and County of Honolulu

Citation100 Haw. 481,60 P.3d 882
Decision Date30 December 2002
Docket NumberNo. 23141.,23141.
PartiesDavid K. DAVENPORT, Respondent/Claimant-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HONOLULU FIRE DEPARTMENT, Petitioner/Employer-Appellee.
CourtSupreme Court of Hawai'i

Paul K.W. Au, Deputy Corporation Counsel, on the briefs, for petitioner/employer-appellee, self-insured.

David K. Davenport, on the briefs, respondent/claimant-appellant pro se.

LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, and RAMIL, JJ.; MOON, C.J., Dissenting; and ACOBA, J., Concurring Separately.

Opinion of the Court by RAMIL, J.
I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner/employer-appellee City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu Fire Department ("the Department") petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari to review the published opinion of the Intermediate Court of Appeals ("ICA") in Davenport v. City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu Fire Department, 100 Hawai`i 297, 59 P.3d 932 (Hawai`i App.2001) [hereinafter "Davenport I"]. The ICA affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the January 5, 2000 Amended Decision and Order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board ("the Board").

The Department contends that the ICA erred in holding: (1) psychological injuries resulting from the stress of non-disciplinary personnel actions are compensable under Hawai`i's worker's compensation statute, Hawai`i Revised Statutes ("HRS") chapter 386 (1963); and (2) remand is required for findings on whether claimant David Davenport's ("Davenport") hypertension is compensable as an injury directly and naturally resulting from a compensable primary injury.

We granted certiorari because we believe the ICA erred in its application of Mitchell v. State Department of Education, 85 Hawai`i 250, 942 P.2d 514 (1997). Although we agree the ICA's conclusion that Davenport's injuries are compensable, we believe that the ICA erred in applying Mitchell to the present case and failing to apply the unitary test to determine whether the personnel action that gave rise to the injury arose out of employment. We otherwise affirm the ICA's holding that the Board was clearly erroneous in finding that Davenport's hypertension injury resulted from the stress of a medical examination conducted on April 10, 1995. We further affirm the ICA's holding to vacate the Board's determination of Davenport's hypertension claim and remand to resolve the issue of whether the hypertension injury was a direct and natural result of a prior compensable injury.

II. BACKGROUND

Davenport became a firefighter with the Department on January 3, 1972 with his ultimate goal being a captain's position. The subject of this appeal concerns two psychological injuries. The first injury occurred in January 1994 and originated from stress surrounding Davenport's endeavor to advance to the position of Fire Fighter Level III ("FFIII"), one level below captain. Davenport's second injury concerns his elevated blood pressure condition diagnosed in April 1995, allegedly stemming from a prior compensable injury to his Achilles tendon.

A. January 1994 Injury

On November 2, 1991, Davenport took promotional examinations for placement on the lists of eligibles for Fire Fighter Level II ("FFII") and FFIII positions. Davenport was dissatisfied with the outcome of the test, specifically, his resulting ranking. According to Davenport, he was originally ranked seventeen on the FFII list, but after a determination that he was not credited properly for education, his ranking increased to eight. His position on the list for FFIII eligibles, however, was not improved. Davenport filed a petition of appeal with the City and County of Honolulu's Civil Service Commission ("the Commission"), requesting that the Commission: (1) disclose certain information relating to three challenged test questions; (2) clarify the formula used by the Personnel Department to compute the scores; and (3) allow additional time for administrative review of the test results.

In July and November of 1993, the Commission held two hearings to resolve Davenport's claims, at which the parties discussed the selection process for determining how candidates are chosen to be placed on the list of eligibles. The Commission delayed ruling on Davenport's complaint and directed the Personnel Department to review the promotion process to ensure that it was fair and equitable. As a result, the Commission's proceedings and hearings on Davenport's petition continued for the next several years and throughout the duration of this appeal. Davenport claims, however, that these events did not contribute to the cause of his psychological injuries.

Meanwhile, in October 1993, the Department promoted Davenport to FFIII. His tenure was cut short, however, when the Department rescinded his promotion in November 1993 and sent him back to his former FFII assignment. The Department claimed that it was forced to take this action after several firefighters filed a lawsuit contesting the validity of the Department's promotional examination. In an attempt to comply with a temporary restraining order issued by the circuit court, against the use of the examination in promoting individuals to the positions of FFIII and captain, the Department rescinded seven promotions, including Davenport's. Davenport claims he was "devastated" by the Department's action. Fire Chief Donald S.M. Chang orally promised Davenport and the other firefighters that the Department would reinstate their promotions before January 1994. However, Richard R. Seto Mook replaced Chang in November 1993, and Davenport's promotion was not reinstated as promised. Davenport was again very upset and went on sick leave. On January 21, 1994, a doctor treated him for symptoms associated with hiatal hernia and irritable colon, which kept him off work for approximately two weeks. In February 1994, the Department reinstated Davenport's promotion to FFIII, but refused to credit Davenport's probationary period for the time he had accumulated from the previous promotion.

Davenport alleges that during this time, he was forced to endure a hostile work environment and harassment by his superiors. The exact nature of these allegations are not clear. However, Davenport claims that, on one occasion, shortly after the reinstatement of his promotion, Fire Chief Seto Mook called him and stated that "if he did not stop his complaining, he would be squashed like a pest, like a fly." Chief Seto Mook's alleged statements were apparently referring to Davenport's appeal to the Commission and his complaints regarding the promotion process.

On October 25, 1994, Davenport filed a claim for worker's compensation benefits for this injury, which he described as "stress, hiatal hernia, [and] irritable colon," caused by "a long series of administrative difficulties regarding [his] promotion over the last several years[.]" Davenport I, 100 Hawai`i at 301, 59 P.3d at 936. The Department denied the claim pending investigation.

B. April 1995 Injury

The second injury at issue in this case is Davenport's condition of elevated blood pressure described by Davenport as "stress— cumulative trauma and pain from industrial injuries." Id. The hypertension allegedly originated from a prior injury that occurred on May 2, 1994, when Davenport tore his right Achilles tendon while playing paddle tennis at the fire station. He underwent surgery and went on total temporary disability ("TTD") from May 5, 1994 to June 14, 1995. The Department accepted liability for the Achilles tendon injury.

While on leave, Davenport began seeing a psychiatrist, Dr. Gordon J. Trockman, for treatment of psychological problems, including depression over his immobility from the foot injury, anger and depression over issues at work, family problems, medical problems (irritable colon and hiatal hernia), and difficulties dealing administratively with the medical system. A clinical psychologist, Joseph P. Rogers, evaluated Davenport in February 1995 and explained that "[a] contributing factor to the build up of perceived stress over the years has been his dogged persistence in pursuing these [promotion and grievance] issues without compromise." Id. at 301, 59 P.3d at 936. Dr. Trockman filed a physician's report for this injury describing it as "[t]orn Achilles tendon physically[.] Depressed, frustrated, and upset emotionally due to additional stress, etc. [sic]."1 Id. (brackets in original).

On April 10, 1995, while still on leave and receiving TTD benefits for the Achilles tendon injury, Davenport saw Dr. John Hall, the Department's physician, for the purpose of evaluating his ability to return to work. During this examination, Davenport was diagnosed with elevated blood pressure and was alerted to the fact that he would face medical disqualification if he did not submit a medical report and treatment plan for the hypertension by May 27, 1995. Davenport filed a worker's compensation claim for the treatment of the hypertension and referenced April 10, 1995 as the date of injury, which he described as "stress—cumulative trauma and pain from industrial injuries." The Department denied liability for this claim.

C. Board's Decision

The Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Disability Compensation Division ("DCD") held a hearing to examine Davenport's claims on October 15, 1996. At the hearing, Davenport alleged that his injuries resulted from: (1) harassment and threats from his superiors and other coworkers; (2) the alleged illegal activities committed by the Department during the promotion process; and (3) the depression he suffered from his Achilles tendon injury. The DCD held that

[Davenport] did not suffer compensable injuries. It is the opinions of Drs. Stitham, Ponce, Rogers and Trockman that [Davenport's] psychiatric problems were caused not by his duties as a fireman, but from the stress of dealing with the administrative process associated with his promotion as a fireman. Even though there is a causal relationship between his injuries and the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Ihara v. State, SCWC-12-0000398.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • October 13, 2017
    ...workers' compensation statute "is social legislation that is to be interpreted broadly." Davenport v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, Honolulu Fire Dep't, 100 Hawai'i 481, 491, 60 P.3d 882, 892 (2002). The statute provides "an injured employee's exclusive remedy for an injury arising out of and in......
  • Gomes v. Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., No. 27816 (Haw. App. 6/30/2008)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Hawai'i
    • June 30, 2008
    ...employer to rebut the presumption that the secondary injury is causally related to the primary injury." Davenport v. City & County of Honolulu, 100 Hawaii 481, 494, 60 P.3d 882, 895, aff'd, 100 Hawaii 481, 60 P.3d 882 (2002). Thus, HECO must provide substantial evidence5 to rebut Gomes' cla......
  • Cabatbat v. County of Hawaii
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • November 4, 2003
    ...Id. at 18, 675 P.2d at 772. Such a policy has been in effect since the early twentieth century. See Davenport v. City & County of Honolulu, 100 Hawai`i 481, 491, 60 P.3d 882, 892 (2002) ("It is well-established in Hawai`i that chapter 386 is social legislation that is to be interpreted broa......
  • Cadiz v. QSI, Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • June 30, 2020
    ...workers’ compensation statute "is social legislation that is to be interpreted broadly." Davenport v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, Honolulu Fire Dep't, 100 Hawai‘i 481, 491, 60 P.3d 882, 892 (2002). The provisions of the Hawai‘i workers’ compensation law "are highly remedial in character. Their......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT