Ihara v. State

13 Citing cases

  1. Pave v. Prod. Processing

    152 Haw. 164 (Haw. Ct. App. 2022)

    "The purpose of a PPD award ... is to compensate a worker for the loss or impairment of a physical or mental function." Ihara v. State Dep't of Land & Nat. Res., 141 Hawai‘i 36, 42, 404 P.3d 302, 308 (2017). "A PPD award is payable to the worker even if the worker returns to work, and the amount of the award derives from the extent of a worker's impairment rather than [their] wage-earning capacity." Id. (citing HRS § 386-32(a) ).

  2. Agasiva v. Realty Laua, LLC

    No. CAAP-17-0000596 (Haw. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    "Appellate review of a LIRAB [(Board)] decision is governed by the provisions of the Hawai'i Administrative Procedure Act relating to judicial review of agency action." Ihara v. State of Hawai'i Dep't. of Land and Nat. Resources, 141 Hawai'i 36, 41, 404 P.3d 302, 307 (2017) (citing HRS § 91-14(g) (1993)) (additional citation omitted)

  3. Noborikawa v. Host Int'l

    No. CAAP-20-0000172 (Haw. Ct. App. Sep. 20, 2024)

    A PPD award "compensates the worker not for total loss of income but for partial loss of function, either physical function or mental function." Ihara v. State Dep't of Land & Nat. Res., 141 Hawaiʻi 36, 46, 404 P.3d 302, 312 (2017) (emphasis added). "[U]ltimately the director of the [LIRAB] . . . decides the final PPD rating."

  4. Ihara v. State

    No. CAAP-19-0000650 (Haw. Ct. App. May. 23, 2024)

    The purpose of a permanent partial disability award "is to compensate a worker for the loss or impairment of a physical or mental function." Ihara v. State, Dep't of Land & Nat. Res., 141 Hawai'i 36, 42, 404 P.3d 302, 308 (2017). It is not based on wages lost.

  5. Cadiz v. QSI, Inc.

    468 P.3d 110 (Haw. 2020)   Cited 2 times
    Holding "[t]o rebut that presumption in favor of compensability, the employer bears the heavy burden of producing substantial evidence disproving that the injury is work connected" and "the ‘substantial evidence’ sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of compensability must disprove the causal relation of the injury-by-disease to the conditions and incidents of claimant's employment, and not merely suggest plausible alternative explanations."

    That presumption is paramount, in part, because the workers’ compensation statute "provides an injured employee's exclusive remedy for an injury arising out of and in the course of employment." Ihara v. State Dep't of Land & Nat. Res., 141 Hawai‘i 36, 42, 404 P.3d 302, 308 (2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To rebut the presumption, the employer has the burden of going forward with the evidence, which is the burden of production, as well as the burden of persuasion; the burden of production means that the employer must initially introduce substantial evidence that, if true, could rebut the presumption that the injury is work-related.

  6. Mariano v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.

    NO. CAAP-16-0000598 (Haw. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2019)

    H. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 418-70, in 1970 House Journal, at 976. "Thus, the legislature intended that total disability benefits should compensate a worker for wages lost when he or she is unable to find regular employment of any kind due to a work-related injury[.]" Ihara v. State, DLNR, 141 Hawai'i 36, 42, 404 P.3d 302, 308 (2017). "Where a work injury causes total disability not determined to be permanent in character, the employer, for the duration of the disability . . . . shall pay temporary total disability benefits[.]"

  7. Josiah v. Target Corp.

    No. CAAP-19-0000120 (Haw. Ct. App. Jun. 23, 2023)

    A PPD rating determined by the Director may differ from a physician's recommendation because it is "ultimately the director . . . or the [LIRAB], and not the physician, that decides the final PPD rating." Ihara v. State Dep't of Land & Nat. Res., 141 Hawai'i 36, 43, 404 P.3d 302, 309 (2017) (citation omitted). On September 15, 2017, SCF appealed the case to LIRAB on the issue of apportionment with Employer Target/Insurer Sedgwick.

  8. Berkoff v. IQ Design LLC

    No. CAAP-18-0000686 (Haw. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2023)

    "Appellate review of a LIRAB decision is governed by the provisions of the Hawai'i Administrative Procedure Act relating to judicial review of agency action." Ihara v. State Dep't of Land &Nat. Res., 141 Hawai'i 36, 41, 404 P.3d 302, 307 (2017) (citations omitted). The Act provides, in relevant part:

  9. Bimbo v. Pua Lani Landscaping Design, Inc.

    No. CAAP-19-0000422 (Haw. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2023)

    "Appellate review of a LIRAB decision is governed by the provisions of the Hawai'i Administrative Procedure Act relating to judicial review of agency action." Ihara v. State Dep't of Land &Nat. Res., 141 Hawai'i 36, 41, 404 P.3d 302, 307 (2017) (citations omitted). The Act provides, in relevant part:

  10. Moranz v. Harbor Mall, LLC

    NO. CAAP-17-0000006 (Haw. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2020)

    "Appellate courts review statutory interpretation de novo." Ihara v. State Dep't of Land & Nat. Res., 141 Hawai'i 36, 41, 404 P.3d 302, 307 (2017) (citing Van Ness v. State, Dep't of Educ., 131 Hawai'i 545, 558, 319 P.3d 464, 477 (2014), as corrected (Feb. 4, 2014)). "When construing a statute, our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself."