Cordero v. County of Maui

545 P.3d 577, 154 Haw. 88

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 28, 2024
• Docket: CAAP-18-0000169
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 28-MAR-2024 08:23 AM Dkt. 52 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

RENEE CORDERO, Claimant-Appellee-Appellee, v. COUNTY OF MAUI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Employer-Appellant-Appellant, and SEDGWICK CMS-HAWAII, Insurance Carrier-Appellant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD (CASE NO. AB 2015-307(M); DCD NO. 7-14-02096)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)

Employer-Appellant-Appellant County of Maui, Public

Prosecutor (Employer) appeals from the February 16, 2018

Decision and Order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals

Board (Board), determining Claimant-Appellee-Appellee Renee

Cordero (Cordero) suffered a compensable personal psychological

stress injury on September 16, 2014, arising out of and in the

course of her employment. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On appeal, Employer raises three points of error

challenging the Board's application of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes

(HRS) § 386-3(c) (2015).

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve the

points of error as discussed below, and affirm.

(1) Employer first contends the Board "wrongfully

found other causes of stress were relevant to [Cordero's] claim

and concluded that [her] claim was not solely related to

disciplinary actions of the Employer." (Formatting altered.)

Hawai‘i law provides for compensation when an employee

suffers an injury "arising out of and in the course of

employment," though a "claim for mental stress resulting solely

from disciplinary action taken in good faith" is exempt:

(a) If an employee suffers personal injury either by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment or by disease proximately caused by or resulting from the nature of the employment, the employee's employer or the special compensation fund shall pay compensation to the employee or the employee's dependents as provided in this chapter.

. . . .

(c) A claim for mental stress resulting solely from disciplinary action taken in good faith by the employer shall not be allowed . . . .

HRS § 386-3 (formatting altered).

Because nothing in HRS § 386-3(c) requires the Board

to limit its review to disciplinary actions, the Board did not

2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

err in considering all sources of stress "arising out of and in

the course of" Cordero's employment as required by HRS § 386-

3(a). See Cadiz v. QSI, Inc., 148 Hawai‘i 96, 107, 468 P.3d 110,

121 (2020) ("The Hawai‘i workers' compensation statute is social

legislation that is to be interpreted broadly" so that an

employee is "indemnified for all infirmities resulting from

their employment.") (cleaned up).

Thus, the Board was not wrong to consider causes of

stress "arising out of and in the course of" Cordero's

employment.

(2) Employer next contends the Board "wrongfully

focused on the September 16, 2014 email in reviewing application

of HRS § 386-3(c) to this case." (Formatting altered.) To

support this contention, Employer relies on medical records to

show there was no treatment sought until the October 28, 2014

email.

Although Employer is correct that Cordero only stopped

working after her supervisor sent the October 28, 2014 email,

the Board made the following findings:

8. The Board also finds that while Claimant's claim for workers' compensation benefits identifies a September 16, 2014 injury date, the record on appeal documents that Claimant's claim relates not only to the exchanges about overtime, but also other matters. Such other matters included meeting deadlines placed on her assignments and discussion of personnel matters in a public area.

9. The Board finds that Claimant's claim is not one for mental stress resulting solely from disciplinary action.

3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

10. The Board finds that Employer has not presented substantial evidence to overcome the presumption of compensability.

(Formatting altered.) These findings are supported by

substantial evidence in the record. See Leslie v. Est. of

Tavares, 91 Hawai‘i 394, 399, 984 P.2d 1220, 1225 (1999).

Moreover, Cordero testified that after she received a

September 16, 2014 email from her supervisor, which warned her

that she needed prior approval to work overtime, Cordero asked

to meet with her supervisor in private to discuss the overtime

issue. But, her supervisor refused to meet in private, raised

her voice at Cordero within earshot of other employees, which

caused Cordero to be "embarrassed and upset," and "start

shaking" and "hav[e] difficulty breathing." The Board credited

Cordero's testimony.

Thus, the Board did not wrongfully apply HRS § 386-3

to the circumstances of this case.

(3) Finally, Employer contends the Board "wrongfully

concluded that [Cordero's] claim was not solely related to

disciplinary action." (Formatting altered.) Employer argues

that the Board's conclusion was wrong because the Board relied

on clearly erroneous findings.

Based on our review of the record, there was

substantial evidence to support the Board's findings and, thus,

4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the Board's conclusion that Cordero's claim "did not result

solely from disciplinary action taken in good faith" was not

wrong. See generally, Bhakta v. Cnty. of Maui, 109 Hawai‘i 198,

208, 124 P.3d 943, 953 (2005) (noting a conclusion of law

supported by findings of fact and reflecting "an application of

the correct rule of law will not be overturned") (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted).

For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the

Decision and Order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals

Board entered on February 16, 2018.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 28, 2024.

On the briefs: /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Presiding Judge Patrick K. Wong Corporation Counsel, /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Caleb P. Rowe, Associate Judge Thomas W. Kolbe, Deputies Corporation Counsel, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen for Employer-Appellant- Associate Judge Appellant.

Stanford H. Masui, for Claimant-Appellee- Appellee.