Igawa v. Koa House Restaurant

• Decision Date: 30 August 2001
• Docket Number: No. 22464.,22464.
• Citation: 97 Haw. 402,38 P.3d 570
• Parties: Darryl S. IGAWA, Respondent-Claimant-Appellant, v. KOA HOUSE RESTAURANT, Petitioner-Employer-Appellee, and Pacific Insurance Company, Petitioner-Insurance Carrier-Appellee.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

38 P.3d 570

97 Haw. 402

Darryl S. IGAWA, Respondent-Claimant-Appellant, v. KOA HOUSE RESTAURANT, Petitioner-Employer-Appellee, and Pacific Insurance Company, Petitioner-Insurance Carrier-Appellee.

No. 22464.

Supreme Court of Hawai`i.

August 30, 2001.

Edie A. Feldman, on the briefs, for petitioner-employer-appellee.

Danny J. Vasconcellos, Honolulu, of Takahashi, Masui & Vasconcellos, on the briefs, for respondent-claimant-appellant.

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, and RAMIL, JJ. and ACOBA, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Opinion of the court by NAKAYAMA, J.

Petitioner-employer-appellee Koa House Restaurant (Koa House) and petitioner-insurance carrier-appellee Pacific Insurance Company (collectively, Employer) apply to this court for a writ of certiorari to review the memorandum opinion of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) in Igawa v. Koa House Restaurant, 95 Hawai`i 438, 23 P.3d 773 (App.2001) [hereinafter, the "ICA's opinion"], reversing in part and affirming in part the decision and order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeal Board (LIRAB or the Board). Employer argues that the ICA gravely erred by: 1) applying the HRS § 386-85(1) (1993) presumption of compensability to the determination of permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits and disfigurement benefits; 2) rejecting Employer's experts' opinions that respondent-claimant-appellant, Darryl Igawa (Claimant) had no work-related permanent impairment; and 3) overruling several of the Board's findings of fact that were not at issue on appeal. We hold that Employer adduced substantial evidence so as to rebut the presumption of compensability and that the Board's findings that Claimant did not suffer any permanent physical or psychological impairment as a result of a work-related incident were not clearly erroneous. Therefore, we reverse part III.A. of the ICA's opinion and affirm the Board's denial of PPD benefits to Claimant.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 3, 1991, Claimant was employed as a cook for Koa House. As Claimant was reaching for another pot, a "big soup pot" fell approximately two feet and hit him above his right eyebrow. The blow also caused his neck to jerk back. Claimant felt dazed, but did not lose consciousness. In the years following the injury, Claimant saw numerous physicians for the treatment of the symptoms that he subsequently developed and for evaluations in the course of his workers' compensation claim.

On November 3, 1993, Yoshio Hosobuchi, M.D., reported that Claimant was suffering from paroxysmal headaches and seizures and that his magnetic resonance imaging test indicated that he had a cyst on his right frontal lobe. Dr. Hosobuchi's impression was that the cyst "probably formed post traumatically secondary to pre-existing cavernous angioma." Dr. Hosobuchi recommended that the cyst be surgically removed. Because Employer did not authorize the surgery, Claimant requested a hearing before the LIRAB Disability Compensation Division. The hearing was scheduled for September 4, 1994.

On October 31, 1994, the Director of the Disability Compensation Division (the Director) rendered a written decision. In the findings of fact, the Director noted that Maurice Nicholson, M.D., opined that the original cause of the cyst was an injury that occurred in 1975.¹ The Director noted that there was conflicting medical testimony as to whether Claimant's condition was attributable to the work injury or to the 1975 injury. The Director stated:

Upon review of the entire matter, it is determined that the surgical excision of the lesion from the right frontal lobe appears to be reasonable and necessary medical care which relates to said [work] injury.

We credit Dr. Hosobuchi's reports . . . in which he opines that claimant "had a small cavernous angioma in the right frontal lobe and because of the head injury it may have hemorrhaged causing headache and seizure problems." Further, Dr. Hosobuchi opines that surgery would eliminate claimant's headache's and seizures.

The Director found that: there was insufficient medical evidence to rebut Dr. Hosobuchi's opinions; the medical evidence indicated that Claimant's headaches and seizures began after the work injury; and, although Claimant had suffered headaches related to the 1975 injury, the condition had been resolved prior to the work injury.

The Director ordered Employer to pay for medical care, services, and supplies necessary to treat Claimant's injury, including the surgery recommended by Dr. Hosobuchi. The Director also awarded Claimant temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, but stated that permanent disability and disfigurement benefits, if any, would be determined at a later date. The Director issued an amended decision on November 15, 1994 that clarified that Claimant's TTD benefits were to be paid until the Director determined that the disability had ended. None of the parties appealed this decision.

A hearing to address the issues of permanent disability, disfigurement, temporary total disability, and other issues was scheduled for March 13, 1996. The Director issued a supplemental decision on July 12, 1996 stating that Claimant was entitled to: 1) 183 4/7 weeks of TTD benefits at $193.34/week for a total of $35,491.69; 2) 232.7009 weeks, which represented a thirty-five percent disability of the whole person, of PPD benefits at $193.34/week for a total of $44,990.40; and 3) a disfigurement benefit of $2,000 for his eight-and-a-half inch surgical scar. Employer appealed the decision to the Board.

On September 13, 1996, the Board issued a pretrial order stating that the issues to be determined were:

a. What is the extent of permanent disability resulting from the work injury of October 3, 1991.

b. What is the extent of disfigurement resulting from the work injury of October 3, 1991.

The trial was held on September 29, 1997. Employer presented no witnesses and rested on its brief.

Claimant testified that he was currently taking medication for seizures, headaches, a sleeping disorder, and chronic pain and that his doctors had informed him that he would have to remain on the medication for the rest of his life. In addition, Claimant testified that he suffered depressive episodes, decreased socialization, dizziness, blurred vision, clumsiness, fatigue, loss of concentration, decreased appetite, and memory problems. He also testified that the surgery to remove the cyst did not eliminate his blackouts; the most recent episode had occurred a month before the hearing. Claimant also experienced periods of suicidal tendencies.

Claimant testified that he suffered seizures and hallucinations as a result of his fall in 1975 and was treated for his condition for seven to eight years after the fall. After that time, his seizures and blackouts ceased, he was able to be more physically active, and he was "getting off" his medication. According to Claimant, in the months prior to his work injury, he was off medication and "[e]verything was fine." Claimant testified that he has been unable to find a job since the accident because of his condition and because he could not stand or sit for long periods of time and could not drive a car or operate heavy machinery.

On cross-examination, Claimant testified that, after the accident, he had continued to work for Koa House until April 1992. According to Claimant, he was fired because he "couldn't come to work" because of his medical problems. However, he admitted that there were complaints about him playing music too loudly as well as other problems with his co-workers. Claimant testified that he had problems with his co-workers before the accident, but that they had worsened after the accident. On November 21, 1997, Claimant submitted his proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and Employer submitted its position statement. The Board filed its decision and order on March 30, 1999. The Board found that Claimant suffered only a "minor head trauma" due to the work accident and that, based on the opinion of Juris Bergmanis, M.D., a neurosurgeon, Claimant's cyst "was more probably related to his major head injury in 1975." The Board also found, based on the report of George Bussey, M.D., a psychiatrist, that Claimant did not have any permanent psychological impairment as a result of his work injury. The Board ultimately concluded that "Claimant did not sustain any permanent disability attributable to his October 3, 1991 work injury, because Claimant's work injury was a minor head trauma which would not have resulted in any permanent impairment either on a physical or psychiatric basis." The Board also reduced Claimant's disfigurement benefit to $850.00. Claimant timely appealed.

On appeal, Claimant argued that: 1) the Board erred in concluding that he had not sustained any permanent disability as a result of his work injury; 2) the Board's finding that he had only suffered a minor head trauma was clearly erroneous; 3) the Board erred by refusing to consider the expert medical opinions he had adduced concerning the degree of impairment he suffered; and 4) the Board erred in reducing the disfigurement benefit. In a memorandum opinion dated February 2, 2001, the ICA affirmed the Board's decision and order in part and reversed it in part.

The ICA noted that, under HRS § 386-85(1), Employer had the burden of rebutting the presumption that Claimant had suffered PPD as a result of the work injury. ICA's opinion at 23, 95 Hawai`i 438, 23 P.3d 773. Further, the ICA noted that there was conflicting medical testimony regarding whether Claimant's condition was caused by the work injury or was solely the result of the 1975 injury, and that, "[i]n instances where the testimony of two doctors directly conflict on the issue of an injury's causal connection to the claimant's employment activity, . . . the conflict should be resolved in the claimant's favor." Id. at 30 (citing Chung v. Animal Clinic, Inc., 63 Haw. 642, 652, 636 P.2d 721,...