420 P.3d 304
Haw.2018Background
- Kimberly Pasco, a DOH Public Health Educator IV, typed extensively for work and in April 2007 increased typing to about seven hours daily to meet a project deadline.
- On April 17, 2007 Pasco experienced an abrupt, severe onset of right elbow/arm/hand pain while typing; she later developed bilateral problems and complex regional pain syndrome after treatment and surgery.
- Treating physicians diagnosed medial epicondylitis attributable to extensive typing; the ERS Medical Board initially attributed her condition to non-work-related myofascial pain syndrome but the hearing officer credited the treating diagnoses and Pasco’s testimony.
- The ERS hearing officer and Board found Pasco permanently incapacitated but denied service-connected disability retirement, concluding the injury was a cumulative/repetitive condition that did not constitute an "accident" at a definite time and place.
- The circuit court affirmed the ERS Board; the ICA reversed based on Panado, holding Pasco’s pain manifested at a definite time and place (April 17, 2007) and thus qualified as an "accident." The Supreme Court affirmed the ICA and remanded for proceedings consistent with that ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pasco) | Defendant's Argument (ERS Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pasco’s work-related overuse injury constitutes an “accident” under HRS § 88-336 | The sudden manifestation of severe pain on April 17, 2007 was an unexpected mishap — an "accident" — even if caused by repeated typing | An "accident" cannot be a condition that developed over weeks/months or from routine duties; only a discrete, single event qualifies | Held: The onset on April 17, 2007 was an "accident" — an unexpected mishap — even though related to repetitive work; Myers and related precedent allow unexpected results from routine duties to be accidents |
| Whether the injury occurred "while in the actual performance of duty at some definite time and place" | Pasco can identify a definite time/place (April 17, 2007 at work) even if she cannot pinpoint the precise keystroke or moment that caused physiologic damage | ERS: Pasco cannot show a discrete moment; Panado is distinguishable because parties in Panado stipulated injury during a workshift | Held: Following Panado, exact moment need not be shown; establishing the injury manifested during a workshift (definite time/place) suffices |
| Whether the Board was bound by its adopted hearing-officer findings that the incapacity was the proximate result of the April 17, 2007 injury | Pasco contends the Board adopted findings that establish causation and onset date | ERS suggested the Medical Board’s contrary medical view (non-work-related syndrome) could prevail | Held: The ERS Board adopted the hearing officer’s findings (medial epicondylitis from typing manifesting April 17, 2007), so it cannot assert a different etiology on appeal |
| Whether Lopez/Kikuta/Myers foreclose recovery for repetitive-stress onset | Pasco: Lopez and Kikuta do not bar a repetitive-stress claim where there is an unexpected, discrete manifestation; Myers supports recovery for unexpected results from routine duties | ERS: Lopez requires an ‘‘unexpected event’’ and precludes injuries that develop from prolonged pressures/stress | Held: Lopez bars only claims lacking any unexpected mishap; it does not preclude cases where an unexpected manifestation occurs during routine duties — Myers and Kikuta guide that outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Bd. of Trs. of the Emps.' Ret. Sys., 68 Haw. 94, 704 P.2d 902 (affirming that an unexpected injury from routine duty can be an "accident")
- Lopez v. Bd. of Trs., Emps.' Ret. Sys., 66 Haw. 127, 657 P.2d 1040 (holding no "accident" where incapacity arose from long-term workplace stresses without any unexpected event)
- Kikuta v. Bd. of Trs., Emps.' Ret. Sys., 66 Haw. 111, 657 P.2d 1030 (an assault at work was an "accident" from employee's perspective despite prior warning)
- Panado v. Bd. of Trs., Emps.' Ret. Sys., 134 Hawai‘i 1, 332 P.3d 144 (holding claimant need not identify the exact moment of injury; establishing injury during a workshift satisfies "some definite time and place")