Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Lui v. PURAL WATER SPECIALTY CO., INC.
Citation: 211 P.3d 89Docket: 29030
Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals; July 20, 2009; Hawaii; State Appellate Court
Claimant-Appellant Aaron J. Lui appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board's (LIRAB) February 8, 2008 Decision and Order in Case No. AB 2005-315. Lui argues that LIRAB erred in several findings: (1) he did not have allergic reactions from mosquito bites at Kapiolani Community College; (2) his allergic reactions were not linked to vocational rehabilitation; (3) his allergic reactions were not compensable; (4) he had exercised his first change of physician with Dr. Wengler; (5) Dr. Lawler could not be his attending physician under workers' compensation; (6) he was not allowed a change of physician; (7) he was not entitled to temporary total disability benefits after June 29, 2004; and (8) vocational rehabilitation services were properly closed. Lui asserts that specific Findings of Fact (FOFs) and Conclusions of Law (COLs) were erroneous. The appellate court, after reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, concludes that Lui's claims are without merit, noting that deference is typically given to administrative agency decisions, unless the agency's interpretation of the statute contradicts legislative intent. Appellate review under HRS § 91-14(g) allows for affirmation, remand, or reversal of agency decisions if substantial rights are prejudiced due to violations of law, excess of authority, unlawful procedures, or arbitrary actions. FOFs are assessed under a "clearly erroneous" standard, while COLs are reviewed for legal errors, with mixed questions of law and fact also receiving deference to agency expertise. In the case of Igawa v. Koa House Rest., the court addressed the standards for determining whether findings of fact (FOFs) or mixed determinations of law and fact are clearly erroneous. Such determinations are considered erroneous if the record lacks substantial evidence or if, despite substantial evidence, the appellate court is convinced a mistake was made. The court defined "substantial evidence" as credible evidence sufficient for a reasonable person to support a conclusion. The Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (LIRAB) found that Lui did not suffer the severe allergic reaction he attributed to mosquito bites during January to mid-March 2004, determining his symptoms were unrelated to his vocational rehabilitation (VR) plan, thus making it a non-compensable workers' compensation claim. Consequently, Lui was not entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) benefits after June 29, 2004. The LIRAB's findings regarding Lui’s change of attending physician were upheld, confirming that he could not see his original physician without employer approval under applicable regulations. Additionally, Lui's mosquito bites were ruled as non-compensable injuries, and the LIRAB deemed his VR plan infeasible due to a medical condition not covered under workers' compensation. Lui's claims regarding the need for medical care for his allergic condition and the termination of TTD benefits were determined to be waived due to lack of presentation to the LIRAB. The Director had previously found the termination of TTD benefits appropriate following the end of Lui’s participation in vocational rehabilitation. The court affirmed the LIRAB's February 8, 2008 Decision and Order in Case No. AB 2005-315.