Seghorn v. State

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
31-MAY-2024
08:17 AM
Dkt. 90 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

DEBBIE L. SEGHORN, Claimant-Appellant-Appellant, v.
STATE OF HAWAIʻI, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Employer-Cross-Appellant-Appellee, Self-Insured, and
STATE OF HAWAIʻI, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,
Adjuster-Cross-Appellant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD
(CASE NO. AB 2017-307(H)(T); DCD No. 1-16-10013)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

Claimant-Appellant-Appellant Debbie L. Seghorn

(Seghorn) appeals the State of Hawai‘i, Labor and Industrial

Relations Appeals Board's (Board): (1) October 23, 2019 "Order

Denying Claimant's Motion for Re-Opening and/or

Reconsideration"; (2) October 4, 2019 Amended Decision and

Order; (3) September 12, 2019 Decision and Order; and

(4) August 21, 2019 Order Denying Motion to Compel. On appeal,

Seghorn proffers five arguments, challenging the denial of

temporary total disability benefits (or TTD) after June 26,

2016, and certain late penalties, attorney's fees, and costs
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

from Employer-Cross-Appellant-Appellee, State of Hawai‘i

Department of Transportation (Employer). 1

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) Seghorn argues the Department of Labor and

Industrial Relations Director's (Director) November 2, 2016

decision determined the cause of her injury and "is res judicata

and law of the case in this appeal." (Formatting altered.)

Seghorn asserts Employer's reliance on reports of her

preexisting conditions is an attempt to relitigate the cause of

her injury.

The Director's November 2, 2016 decision determined

Seghorn suffered a psychological injury in the course of her

employment, and deferred the decision on temporary disability.

The Director's October 18, 2017 decision determined Seghorn was

entitled to temporary total disability benefits. The

1 We note that Seghorn's points of error do not correspond with the
argument section of her opening brief.

We also note that, in her points of error, Seghorn challenges Findings
of Fact (FOF) 4, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, and 30 in the October 4, 2019 Amended
Decision and Order. FOF 4, 20, and 21 make credibility determinations, which
we will not disturb on appeal. See generally, Pave v. Prod. Processing,
Inc., 152 Hawaiʻi 164, 172, 524 P.3d 355, 363 (App. 2022) (stating when
reviewing FOF in agency appeals, this court "cannot . . . review the agency's
findings of fact by passing upon credibility of witnesses or conflicts in
testimony") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). FOF 15 is
addressed infra at section (5), FOF 22 is addressed infra at section (2), and
FOF 30 is addressed infra at section (3). And Seghorn points to no evidence
in the record to show FOF 14 was clearly erroneous.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

October 18, 2017 decision also imposed a 20% late fee, as well

as attorney's fees and costs on Employer.

Employer appealed the October 18, 2017 decision to the

Board, and in its initial conference statement indicated it

would challenge the total temporary disability benefits for the

dates Seghorn worked, the 20% penalty, and attorney's fees and

costs. Moreover, the October 4, 2019 Amended Decision and Order

enumerated the issues on appeal were (1) "What is the period of

temporary total disability, resulting from [Seghorn]'s

November 23, 2015 work injury"; (2) "Whether Employer is liable

for a penalty of $3,406.77 assessed pursuant to [Hawai‘i Revised

Statutes (HRS) § 386-92 (2015)] for late payment of the

temporary total disability benefits for [Seghorn]'s November 23,

2015 work injury"; and (3) "Whether Employer is liable for

[Seghorn]'s attorney's fees and costs."

In sum, Employer did not appeal the November 2, 2016

decision determining the cause of Seghorn's injury, and the

cause of her injury was not an issue before the Board. In other

words, the cause of Seghorn's injury was not relitigated and,

thus, we do not reach Seghorn's res judicata and law of the case

argument(s).

(2) Seghorn argues "the clear weight of the evidence

was that [she] remains disabled as a result of the work-place

psychological injury or aggravation of an alleged pre-existing

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

condition." (Formatting altered.) The gist of Seghorn's

argument appears to be that the Board erred in determining she

was stable as of June 26, 2016.

HRS § 386-31(b) (Supp. 2018) provides "[w]here a work

injury causes total disability not determined to be permanent in

character, the employer, for the duration of the disability, but

not including the first three calendar days thereof, shall pay

the injured employee a weekly benefit" and payment of benefits

"shall only be terminated upon order of the director or if the

employee is able to resume work." (Emphasis added.) "Able to

resume work means an industrially injured worker's injury has

stabilized after a period of recovery and the worker is capable

of performing work in an occupation for which the worker has

. . . demonstrated aptitude." HRS § 386-1 (2015) (internal

quotation marks omitted and emphasis added).

Here, the Board was authorized to hold a de novo

hearing, and one of the issues on appeal was "the period of

temporary total disability, resulting from [Seghorn]'s

November 23, 2015 work injury." HRS § 386-87(b) (2015) ("The

appellate board shall hold a full hearing de novo on appeal.").

In determining the period of temporary total disability, it was

within the Board's authority to consider whether Seghorn's

injury had stabilized. See generally, HRS §§ 386-1, 386-31(b).

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The Board found that Seghorn was not temporarily and

totally disabled as of June 26, 2016. The Board credited the

opinions of Brian Goodyear, Ph.D. (Dr. Goodyear) and Joseph P.

Rogers, Ph.D. (Dr. Rogers) that Seghorn's "work injury reached a

point of medical stability at the time of Dr. Goodyear's

June 26, 2016 evaluation." Seghorn does not expressly challenge

these findings in her points of error, and we will not disturb

credibility determinations on appeal. Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate

Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4); see generally, Pave v. Prod.

Processing, Inc., 152 Hawaiʻi 164, 172, 524 P.3d 355, 363 (App.

2022); Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 97 Hawai‘i 450,

458, 40 P.3d 73, 81 (2002) ("Findings of fact . . . not

challenged on appeal are binding on the appellate court.").

As such, we cannot conclude the Board violated

constitutional or statutory provisions, exceeded its authority,

followed unlawful procedure, clearly erred, or abused its

discretion in determining Seghorn reached medical stability as

of June 26, 2016. See HRS § 91-14(g) (Supp. 2017).

(3) Seghorn argues that "penalties were justified for

all late payments up to the Director's cut off of Nov. 30,

2016[,]" and the Board "based its penalties on its erroneous cut

off date of June 26, 2016." (Formatting altered.) Seghorn

asserts, "[i]t is puzzling that [the Board] states that there

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

was 'no evidence of timing' of the issuance of the disability

checks after June 26, 2016."

Under HRS § 386-31, "[t]he employer shall pay

temporary total disability benefits promptly as they accrue to

the person entitled thereto without waiting for a decision from

the director, unless this right is controverted by the employer

in the employer's initial report of industrial injury." HRS

§ 386-31(b). "The first payment of benefits shall become due

and shall be paid no later than on the tenth day after the

employer has been notified of the occurrence of the total

disability, and thereafter the benefits due shall be paid weekly

except as otherwise authorized pursuant to section 386-53." HRS

§ 386-31(b).

"The payment of these benefits shall only be

terminated upon order of the director or if the employee is able

to resume work." HRS § 386-31(b). If not paid on time, "there

shall be added to the unpaid compensation an amount equal to

twenty per cent thereof payable at the same time as, but in

addition to, the compensation. . . . " HRS § 386-92 (2015).

Here, the Board found Employer was liable for late

payment penalties for the following periods:

• November 26, 2015 through December 15, 2015

• January 15, 2016 through February 17, 2016

• March 2, 2016 through March 6, 2016

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

• March 17, 2016 through April 5, 2016

• May 25, 2016 through June 26, 2016

(Emphasis omitted.) FOF 30 stated,

30. There being no evidence of the timing of payment
to TTD for the remaining periods through June 26, 2016, and
[Seghorn] not being entitled to TTD for the period after
June 26, 2016, the Board finds that [Seghorn] has not met
her burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence,
that Employer should be liable for a penalty, pursuant to
[HRS §] 386-92[.]

(Emphasis added.) Seghorn challenges FOF 30.

The Board, however, did not reject a penalty for total

temporary disability benefits payments after June 26, 2016 based

on no evidence of timing of the payments in the record as

Seghorn claims. The Board rejected the penalty for total

temporary disability benefits payments after June 26, 2016

because Seghorn's work injury was stable as of June 26, 2016.

Thus, FOF 30 was not clearly erroneous and we cannot

conclude the Board violated constitutional or statutory

provisions, exceeded its authority, followed unlawful procedure,

clearly erred, or abused its discretion in rejecting a penalty

for payments made for total temporary benefits after June 26,

2016.

(4) Seghorn contends the Board "erred when it failed

to compel discovery of Employer records and non-responsive

answers." (Formatting altered.) Seghorn asserts Employer

failed to fully respond to interrogatories 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and

11.

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The order denying the motion to compel did not provide

a reason for the denial, but stated that a hearing on the motion

was held on March 7, 2019. The record on appeal in this case

consists of 11 volumes and over 2,800 pages, and Seghorn fails

to point to where in these 11 volumes and over 2,800 pages the

transcripts for the March 7, 2019 hearing are located. 2 See

Hawai‘i Administrative Rules § 12-47-56(b) (requiring appellant

to order transcripts of proceedings not already on file); Onaka

v. Onaka, 112 Hawai‘i 374, 387, 146 P.3d 89, 102 (2006)

(explaining "[w]e have repeatedly warned that an appellate court

will not sift through a voluminous record" where appellant fails

to provide citations to the record).

Without the relevant transcript, "this court does

not[] have a basis upon which to review the point of error

raised in the present appeal." State v. Hoang, 93 Hawai‘i 333,

334, 3 P.3d 499, 500 (2000).

(5) Seghorn contends the Board "erred when it failed

to allow re-opening and/or reconsideration." (Formatting

altered.)

Without referencing specific findings or conclusions,

Seghorn argues the Board's decision should have been reopened to

2 HRAP Rule 28(b)(3) provides, "[r]ecord references shall include a
description of the document referenced, the JIMS or JEFS docket number and
electronic page citations . . . ." The opening brief's reference to record
citations do not include the docket number(s). Counsel is cautioned to
adhere to the HRAP requirements.

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

correct the error that: (1) "there was no authorization signed

by Seghorn to authorize treating physician [Douglas Olsen, M.D.

(Dr. Olsen)] to release records by subpoena"; (2) "Seghorn had

received no medical treatment, nor had actually been seen by

Dr. Olsen to receive certifications of disability . . . ;" and

(3) she "lack[ed] motivation to resume work, despite total lack

of evidence to support the Board's finding."

Without providing citations to the record, Seghorn

then asserts "authorization was in Employer's file, Seghorn was

in fact under medical treatment, and did desire [to] return to

work." (Formatting altered.)

The Board's decision noted on April 21, 2017, Employer

requested Seghorn sign an authorization to release medical

records, and there was no evidence the form was signed and

returned to Employer. However, the authorization to release

information Seghorn sought to introduce was an authorized

release of her medical information to her attorney, not to

Employer, and predated the April 21, 2017 request. Thus even if

considered, the authorization to release included in the record

would not establish a mistake of fact by the Board, or that

Employer "deliberately decided not to obtain records of

treatment."

In addition, Seghorn represented additional medical

records from Dr. Olsen, along with other evidence already in the

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

record, would show proof of continued disability and "aid in a

just resolution" of her claim. Her declaration stated she was

unaware Dr. Rogers and Dr. Goodyear recommended vocational

rehabilitation for her, but that "all my life I have been able

to find satisfactory jobs by myself" and she wanted to return to

her same job and position once her doctors agreed she would be

able to do so. Seghorn, however, offers no explanation as to

why this information was not presented to the Board before it

issued its decision.

Therefore, the Board did not abuse its discretion in

denying the motion to reopen or reconsider.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the: (1) October 23,

2019 "Order Denying Claimant's Motion for Re-Opening and/or

Reconsideration"; (2) October 4, 2019 Amended Decision and

Order; and (3) August 21, 2019 Order Denying Motion to Compel.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 31, 2024.

On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Presiding Judge
Stanford H. Masui,
for Claimant-Appellant- /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Appellant. Associate Judge

Shawn L.M. Benton, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
(Cox, Wootton, Lerner, Associate Judge
Griffin & Hansen),
for Employer-Cross-Appellant
Appellee, and
Adjuster-Cross-Appellant-
Appellee.

10