This conclusion misinterprets Lopez. Lopez must be viewed in light of Kikuta v. Board of Trustees, Employees' Retirement System, 66 Haw. 111, 657 P.2d 1030 (1983), as both cases were issued by this court on the same day, and each addressed the meaning of "accident" in the service-connected disability retirement context. Indeed, in Myers, 68 Haw. 94, 704 P.2d 902, this court referred to both Lopez and Kikuta to explain why an employee, who was injured when lifting a coffee pot, suffered an "accident."

Also, and again in like fashion, the Board attempted to erect a fire-wall between workers' compensation standards and any standards that may be applicable to disability retirement. In addition, both parties tried to claim the one Hawai'i case interpreting the phrase "actual performance of duty," Kikuta v. Bd. of Trs. of the Employees' Ret. Sys., 66 Haw. 111, 657 P.2d 1030 (1983), as support for his or its position, Hua pointing out that the employee in Kikuta was injured on his employer's premises, and the Board emphasizing that he was injured during a work recess deemed working time by statute. Finally, in reply, Hua offered his spin on HAR § 6-22-2, urging the circuit court not to read the phrase "during working hours" to modify the latter clause "at wherever the claimant's duties require the claimant to be."

As in Lopez, we find no "unlooked for mishap or untoward event" which occurred to Komatsu at some definite time and place while he was in the actual performance of duty as required under HRS § 88-79(a). Kikuta v. Board of Trustees, Employees' Retirement System, 66 Haw. 111, 657 P.2d 1030 (1983), discusses the kind of causation which qualifies as an "accident." In Kikuta, an unprovoked assault was considered an "accident" since it occurred during work at a single time.

She took issue with the hearing officer’s failure to explain why the statement by “Department of Education— Radford High School” that Stout was “ ‘on dut^ at the time of the accident” was “unimportant.” Stout also pointed out the hearing officer failed to indicate whether the standard of review for summary judgment motions was followed, did not discuss several cases she had cited to in her briefs such as Hua v. Board of Trustees of the Employees’ Retirement System, State of Hawai‘i, 112 Hawai'i 292 , 146 P.3d 836 (App. 2006), and Kikuta v. Board of Trustees of the Employees’ Retirement System, State of Hawai'i, 66 Haw. 111 , 657 P.2d 1030 (1983), and

We have earlier decided that for purposes of HRS § 88-77 "[a]n accident is an unlooked for mishap or untoward event which is not expected or designed." Lopez v. Board of Trustees of ERS, 66 Haw. 127, 130, 657 P.2d 1040, 1043 (1983), and Kikuta v. Board of Trustees of ERS, 66 Haw. 111, 114, 657 P.2d 1030, 1033 (1983). Since the July 25, 1977 incident was, beyond question, an unlooked for mishap which was not expected or designed, it was an "accident".

See, e.g., Pasco v. Bd. of Trs. Emps.' Ret. Sys., 142 Hawai'i 373, 381-82, 420 P.3d 304, 312-13 (2018) (Pasco's deteriorating condition and pain was not expected or designed; it was an accident); Myers v. Bd. of Trs. Emps.' Ret. Sys., 68 Haw. 94, 95-96, 704 P.2d 902, 903-04 (1985) (rejecting ERS Board's argument that unexpected result (severe back injury) from routine performance of duty (lifting a coffee pot) did not constitute an accident); Kikuta v. Bd. of Trs. Emps.' Ret. Sys., 66 Haw. 111, 114-17, 657 P.2d 1030, 1033-34 (1983) (from the point of view of the employee, stabbing assault by brother-in-law was unexpected notwithstanding warning from sister months earlier; it was an accident).