Opinion
No. CAAP–13–0000022.
2013-11-26
Eden L. PANADO, Appellant–Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Appellee–Appellee.
For these reasons, I conclude that the Circuit Court erred in ruling, as a matter of law, that Panado's description of how she was injured was insufficient to satisfy the requirement of HRS § 88–79 that the work accident occur “at some definite time and place” and in affirming the Board on this basis. I would vacate the Circuit Court's decision and order and Final Judgment, and I would and remand the case to have the Circuit Court rule on the Board's alternative ground for denying Panado's application—namely, that Panado failed to demonstrate that her permanent incapacitation was the natural and proximate result of her alleged accident on October 9, 2004.