NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER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NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER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.
5