Napoleon v Condotech's Hawaii Resort
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 22301 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I DOLORES L. NAPOLEON, Claimant-Appellee vs. CONDOTECH S HAWAII RESORT and HAWAII INSURANCE GUARANTY, Employer/Insurance Carrier-Appellant and SPECIAL COMPENSATION FUND, Appellee APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD (CASE NO. AB 86-416(M) (7-91-03241) (By: SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.) Employer-appellant Condotech s Hawaiiana Resort and Insurance carrier-appellant Hawaii Insurance Guaranty Association (collectively, Appellants ) appeal from the January 8, 1999 decision and order that the Labor Relations and Industrial Relations Appeals Board ( the Board ) entered in favor of Claimant-Appellee Dolores Napoleon and Appellee Special Compensation Fund (SCF) and the February 9, 1999 order denying Appellants motion for reconsideration. Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments made and the issues raised by the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the orders are hereby affirmed for the following reasons: (1) under Hawai#i Revised Statutes (HRS) ยง 386-33 (1985), in order to obtain apportionment with the SCF, an employer must establish that the claimant suffered from a preexisting permanent partial disability, that the disability would have supported a thirty-two week compensation award, and that the preexisting disability combined with the work-related injury resulted in a greater disability; Bumanglag v. Oahu Sugar Co., Ltd., 78 Hawai#i 275, 280, 892 P.2d 468, 473 (1995); (2) there was insufficient evidence that the psychiatric disorders Napoleon was diagnosed with after the work -related injury pre-dated the injury; (3) assuming arguendo that the psychiatric disorders were preexisting permanent disabilities, there was insufficient evidence that the disorders would have warranted a thirty-two week compensation award; and (4) the Board s decision did not impose a pre-injury manifestation requirement. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 30, 2000. On the briefs: Clyde Umebayashi and Muriel M. Taira of Kessner Duca Umebayashi Bain and Matsunaga for Employer/Insurance Carrier-Appellant Leo B. Young, Robyn M. Kuwabe and Frances E.H. Lum, Deputy Attorneys General, for the Special Compensation Fund Appellee
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.
