CHARLES P. POUONO, Claimant-Appellee/Appellant,
DAIICHIYA-LOVES BAKERY, INC., and TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Employer/Insurance Carrier-Appellant/Appellee
This decision is published in table format in the Pacific and Hawai'i reporter.
APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD. CASE NO. AB 2009-076. 2-08-00965.
On the briefs: Herbert R. Takahashi, Rebecca L. Covert, Davina W. Lam, (Takahashi & Covert) for Claimant-Appellee/Appellant.
Kenneth T. Goya, Steven L. Goto, (Ayabe, Chong, Nishimoto, Sia, & Nakamura), for Employer-Insurance Carrier-Appellant/Appellee.
Nakamura, C.J., Fujise and Ginoza, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
In this secondary appeal, Claimant-Appellee/Appellant Charles P. Pouono (Pouono) appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board's (Board) October 17, 2011 Decision and Order (Decision and Order) reversing the Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations' Decision sustaining Pouono's claim for workers' compensation benefits from Employer-Appellant/Appellee Daiichiya-Loves Bakery, Inc. (Daiichiya-Loves), and Insurance Carrier-Appellant/Appellee Travelers Property Casualty Company of America.
The Board ruled in Daiichiya-Loves's favor on the following issues as defined by the Board:
(1) Whether [Pouono] sustained a personal injury to the ' left hip on December 10, 2007, arising out of and in the course of employment; and if so,
(2) Whether [Pouono] is entitled to and [Daiichiya-Loves is] liable for [Pouono's] total hip replacement surgery.
On appeal, Pouono essentially argues that the Board failed to properly apply the presumption of compensability set forth in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 386-85 (1993) and that the Board erroneously concluded that Daiichiya-Loves presented substantial evidence to rebut the presumption.
After reviewing the record on appeal, the points raised, the parties' arguments and the applicable legal authority, we affirm.
We begin with the presumption that Pouono's claim for hip replacement surgery due to a hip injury is a covered work injury and then examine the record to determine whether Daiichiya-Loves was able to meet its heavy burden of providing substantial evidence to overcome the presumption. Van Ness v. State of Hawai'i, 131 Haw. 545, 558, 319 P.3d 464, 477 (2014).
The Board clearly acknowledged that it was required to apply the presumption of compensability, and thus, there is no question that the Board was aware of the correct legal standard. The issue on appeal ...