Holmes v. Hooper Holmes, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 22790 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I ELIZABETH J. HOLMES, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. HOOPER HOLMES, INC., a Hawai#i corporation; MICHAEL UPCHURCH, individually and in his official capacity as Branch Manager for HOOPER HOLMES, INC.; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS 1-10; DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants-Appellees APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 97-1294-04) (By: SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Lim, in place of Acoba, J., recused) Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve the plaintiff-appellant Elizabeth J. Holmes s points of error as follows: (1) Holmes claims that the circuit court committed error with respect to rulings regarding jury instructions and the special verdict form. We hold that any error regarding the substance of the jury instructions and special verdict form was harmless, inasmuch as the record reflects that the jury neither reached any of the issues implicating any of the challenged instructions nor any of the challenged portions of the special verdict form. See Craft v. Peebles, 78 Hawai#i 287 (1995); Stratis v. Pacific Ins. Co., Ltd., 7 Haw. App. 1, 739 P.2d 251 (1987). (2) Holmes argues that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment against her and in favor of the defendants with respect to her claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. We hold that her claim was barred by the Workers Compensation Law, inasmuch as the defendants were Holmes s employer and fellow employee. See Hawai#i Revised Statutes ยง 386-5 (1993); Marshall v. University of Hawaii, 9 Haw. App. 21, 821 P.2d 937 (1991); see also Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 82 Hawai#i 1, 919 P.2d 263 (1996). (3) Holmes argues that the circuit court erred in denying her motion to compel discovery. We hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion, inasmuch as Holmes s motion to compel discovery was untimely. See Acoba v. General Tire, Inc., 92 Hawai#i 1, 986 P.2d 288 (1999). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the first circuit court, filed on August 19, 1999, from which the appeal is taken, is affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 25, 2000. On the briefs: Elizabeth J. Fujiwara and Joyce M. Brown for the plaintiff-appellee Elizabeth J. Holmes Lynne T. Toyofuku, Jared H. Jossem, and J. Denice Von Gnechten (of Jossem & Toyofuku) for the defendants-appellees Hooper Holmes, Inc. and Michael Upchurch 2
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.
