Freitas v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION ______________________________________________________________________________ NO. 25499 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I URSULA M. O. FREITAS, Claimant-Appellant, v. HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. and KEMPER INSURANCE COMPANIES, Employer/Insurance Carrier-Appellee APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD (Case No. B 2001-213 (2-98-06432)) (By: SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER Lim, Acting C.J., Foley, J. and Circuit Judge Marks, in place of Burns, C.J., recused.) In this workers' compensation case, Ursula M.O. Freitas (Freitas or Claimant) appeals, pro se, the November 4, 2002 order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (the Board) that denied her October 11, 2002 motion for reconsideration of the Board's September 11, 2002 decision and order. The Board's September 11, 2002 decision and order dismissed Freitas' April 26, 2001 appeal to the Board, "for Claimant's obstruction of Employer's attempts to complete discovery, Claimant's use of dilatory tactics, and Claimant's failure to comply with orders of this Board." Upon an assiduous review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and giving careful consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve Freitas' points of error on appeal as follows: 1. Inasmuch as Freitas does not specify or argue error -1- NOT FOR PUBLICATION ______________________________________________________________________________ in connection with the November 4, 2002 order of the Board that denied her October 11, 2002 motion for reconsideration, we will not review, and therefore affirm, the Board's November 4, 2002 order. See Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4) (2003); Wright v. Chatman, 2 Haw. App. 74, 76-77, 625 P.2d 1060, 1062 (1981); HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) (2003); Weinberg v. Mauch, 78 Hawai#i 40, 49, 890 P.2d 277, 286 (1995); In re Wai#ola O Moloka#i, Inc., No. 22250, slip op. at 73 n.33 (Haw. filed January 29, 2004). 2. Regarding the Board's September 11, 2002 decision and order that dismissed Freitas' appeal to the Board, we conclude the Board's decision and order was (1) made upon lawful procedure, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14(g)(3) (1993); Korsak v. Hawaii Permanente Med. Group, Inc., 94 Hawai#i 297, 302, 12 P.3d 1238, 1243 (2000); Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) § 12-47-48(a); Int'l. Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Hawaiian Tel. Co., 68 Haw. 316, 323, 713 P.2d 943, 950-51 (1986), and (2) was not an abuse of discretion. HRS § 91-14(g)(6); Korsak, 94 Hawai#i at 302, 12 P.3d at 1243; HAR § 12-47-48(a); S. Foods Group, L.P. v. State, Dep't. of Educ., 89 Hawai#i 443, 452-53, 974 P.2d 1033, 1042-43 (1999). The record amply demonstrates that Freitas' repeated refusals to permit discovery, to comply with orders of the Board upon Employer's numerous motions to compel, and to heed sanctions of the Board for her noncompliance, were chronic, obdurate and unregenerate. Richardson v. Lane, 6 Haw. App. 614, -2- _________________________________________________________________ NOT FOR PUBLICATION 619, 736 P.2d 63, 67 (1987). 3. In her remaining cognizable point of error on appeal, Freitas contends the Board's February 6, 2002 order that denied her February 5, 2002 motion to continue hearing on Employer's motion to compel medical examination was an abuse of discretion. Because Freitas' argument in this respect lacks support in the record, we disagree. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the November 4, 2002 order and the September 11, 2002 decision and order of the Board are affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, February 27, 2004. On the briefs: Acting Chief Judge Ursula M. O. Freitas, claimant-appellant, pro se. Clyde Umebayashi and James N. Duca (Kessner Duca Umebayashi Bain & Matsunaga), for employer/insurance carrier-appellee. Associate Judge Acting Associate Judge -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
