Weis v. Pali Momi Medical Center

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
04-JUN-2024
07:50 AM
Dkt. 81 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

TERESA L. WEIS, Claimant-Appellant/Appellant,
v.
PALI MOMI MEDICAL CENTER, Employer-Appellee/Appellee, and
HAWAI#I PACIFIC HEALTH, Insurance Carrier-Appellee/Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD
(CASE NO. AB 2017-289(WH); DCD NO. 9-14-00740)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)

Teresa L. Weis appeals from a July 16, 2019 Decision
and Order (D&O) of the Hawai#i Labor and Industrial Relations
Appeals Board (LIRAB or the Board) for her employer, Pali Momi
Medical Center, and its insurer, Hawaii Pacific Health. We
vacate and remand for further proceedings.
The facts are not disputed. On December 17, 2008, Weis
was working at the Kona Community Hospital (which is not a part
of Pali Momi) when she was exposed to a patient with tuberculosis
(TB) disease.1 Weis was tested and diagnosed with latent TB

1
Not everyone infected with TB bacteria becomes sick. Two TB-
related conditions exist: latent TB infection and TB disease. People with
latent TB infection have no symptoms, don't feel sick, and can't spread TB
bacteria to others. People with TB disease are sick and may be able to spread
TB bacteria to other people. Many people who have latent TB infection never
develop TB disease. Some develop TB disease soon after becoming infected,
before their immune system can fight the TB bacteria. Other people may get
(continued...)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

infection. She began working for Pali Momi in February 2010 as
the imaging department receptionist. She had latent TB infection
and a negative chest x-ray.
On January 23, 2012, Weis was working at Pali Momi when
she received a telephone call from the Lanakila TB Center. She
was told she tested positive for TB disease. She reported this
to her supervisor, who reported it to Pali Momi's human resource
(HR) office. Weis was placed on leave. After ten days, the
Lanakila TB Center authorized her return to work because she was
no longer contagious or a danger to others. She returned to work
in February 2012.
TB can be an occupational injury by disease. In May
2012, Weis went to Pali Momi's HR office and asked Tameron Hodges
about filing a workers' compensation claim for TB. Weis
testified that Hodges said, "no, unless you know who the patient
breathed on you, or whatever it was." Weis didn't know who
infected her with TB disease, so she didn't think she could file
a workers' compensation claim.
Weis resigned from Pali Momi on August 18, 2014.
During her HR exit interview that day, she asked if she could
file a workers' compensation claim for TB. The person gave her
paperwork to file a claim. Pali Momi filed a WC-1 report of
industrial injury the next day. Pali Momi denied liability
"pending investigation."
Weis filed a WC-5 employee's claim for workers'
compensation benefits on October 6, 2014. The Disability
Compensation Division held a hearing on August 22, 2017. On
October 27, 2017, the Director of Labor and Industrial Relations
denied Weis's claim. The Director concluded that Weis's claim
was time-barred under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 386-82.

1
(...continued)
sick years later when their immune system becomes weak for another reason.
See Latent TB Infection and TB Disease, https://www.cdc.gov/tb/topic/basics/
tbinfectiondisease.htm (last visited May 6, 2024) [Perma Link
https://perma.cc/8KHU-UXNW].

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Weis appealed to LIRAB. LIRAB affirmed the Director.
This appeal followed.
Weis doesn't dispute she filed her WC-5 over two years
after she knew her TB disease could be related to her work for
Pali Momi. She argues: (1) Pali Momi should be equitably
estopped from raising the statute of limitations; and (2) Pali
Momi should be deemed to have accepted her claim because it
didn't comply with Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) §§ 12-10-
68(b) and 12-10-73(a).
(1) Weis does not challenge LIRAB's findings of fact.
We review LIRAB's decision about estoppel de novo. Cf. In re
Kukui (Molokai), Inc., 143 Hawai#i 434, 441, 431 P.3d 807, 814
(2018) ("When the facts underlying a waiver are undisputed it may
become a question of law." (cleaned up)).
LIRAB questioned its authority "to grant an equitable
remedy to bar a jurisdictional statute of limitations defense."
The Director has "original jurisdiction over all controversies
and disputes arising under" the Hawai#i Workers' Compensation
Law, HRS § 386-73 (2015), and has "all powers necessary to
facilitate or promote" its "efficient execution[.]" HRS § 386-71
(2015). HRS § 386-86 (2015), concerning proceedings and
hearings, has no restriction on the Director's authority to
consider or apply equitable doctrines such as estoppel. Case law
blending legal and equitable defenses supports this authority.
See Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Royal Aloha v. Certified Mgmt.,
Inc., 139 Hawai#i 229, 235, 386 P.3d 866, 872 (2016) (holding
that "laches is a defense in all civil actions"); In re Yoneji
Revocable Tr., 147 Hawai#i 104, 113, 464 P.3d 892, 901 (App.
2020) (noting that laches is "a defense to legal and equitable
claims alike" (quoting Royal Aloha, 139 Hawai#i at 236, 386 P.3d
at 873)). LIRAB reviews the Director's decisions de novo. HRS
§ 386-87 (2015). It was authorized to decide whether Pali Momi
should be equitably estopped from relying on the HRS § 386-82
time bar.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

LIRAB found:

Even if the Board could apply the doctrine of
equitable estoppel to toll the limitation period or excuse
the late filing of a claim under Chapter 386, the record
contains no evidence from [Weis] that [Hodges] "willfully"
caused [Weis] to erroneously believe that she could not file
a workers' compensation claim.

(Emphasis added.)
LIRAB's finding was clearly erroneous. Weis testified:

Q. Okay. So when -- when was the first time you ever
had a discussion with any representative of Pali Momi about
a workers' comp claim?

A. It was around May 2012. I went downstairs after --
after, like, my lunch hour. And I went down and asked
Tameron Hodges, HR person. I asked her. I said, Tameron, can
I file workers' compensation for my tuberculosis? And she
said, no, unless you know who the patient breathed on you,
or whatever it was. And I was like, well, how would I know
that? So I just thought I could never do it.
. . . .

Q. Okay. So you didn't file a claim in May of 2012?

A. No, she told me I couldn't.

Q. Okay. And you relied upon that?

A. Yes, I did.
. . . .

Q. Okay. And prior to signing [the WC-5] on
September 26th, '14, and then sending it to Department of
Labor, why did [sic] you file a claim before that?
A. Because of Tameron Hodges told me I couldn't,
unless I knew who the patient was.

Hodges did not testify during the LIRAB hearing. The
record does not contain a transcript of her deposition (if one
was taken) or a declaration disputing Weis's account. LIRAB did
not find that Weis was not credible. LIRAB's statement that "the
record contains no evidence" was clearly erroneous.
Weis argues LIRAB erred by concluding she had to show
that Pali Momi "willfully" caused her to believe she couldn't
file a workers' compensation claim. LIRAB cited Maria v.
Freitas, 73 Haw. 266, 273, 832 P.2d 259, 264 (1992) (noting that

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"equitable estoppel requires proof that one person wilfully
caused another person to erroneously believe a certain state of
things, and that person reasonably relied on this erroneous
belief to his or her detriment" (emphasis added)). But equitable
estoppel doesn't always require proof of specific intent by the
party to be estopped. There are two kinds of equitable estoppel:
promissory estoppel; and estoppel in pais, or estoppel by
conduct. Fred v. Pac. Indem. Co., 53 Haw. 384, 387, 494 P.2d
783, 785 (1972).

[P]romissory estoppel may arise as an application of the
general principle of equitable estoppel to certain
situations where a promise has been made, even without
consideration, if it was intended that the promise be relied
upon and was in fact relied upon, and a refusal to enforce
it would be virtually to sanction the perpetration of fraud
or result in other injustice.
To constitute estoppel in pais the party against whom it is
sought to be enforced must have made some representation the
effect of which would be to influence the conduct of the one
seeking to enforce the estoppel and induce him to change his
position so as to materially injure him if the party making
the representation is allowed to deny its truth.

Id. at 388, 494 P.2d at 786 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
In a case involving estoppel by conduct, we held:

It is well-settled that a defendant cannot avail her[self]
or himself of the bar of the statute of limitations, if it
appears that he or she has done anything that would tend to
lull the plaintiff into inaction, and thereby permit the
limitation prescribed by the statute to run . . . . One
invoking equitable estoppel must show that he or she has
detrimentally relied on the representation or conduct of the
person sought to be estopped, and that such reliance was
reasonable.

Vidinha v. Miyaki, 112 Hawai#i 336, 342, 145 P.3d 879, 885 (App.
2006) (cleaned up) (emphasis added).
Weis argues she didn't file a written claim because she
relied on Hodges telling her she couldn't file one unless she
knew who infected her with TB. Weis had the burden to prove her
reliance was reasonable. Vidinha, 112 Hawai#i at 342, 145 P.3d
at 885. LIRAB found, and Weis doesn't dispute:

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

mm. [Weis] testified that other than [Hodges], she
did not ask the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
or anyone else for information about filing workers'
compensation claims.
nn. [Weis] testified that [Pali Momi] posted
information about filing workers' compensation claims in the
lunchroom at work, but she did not pay close attention to
it, because she did not think something like this would
happen to her.

HRS § 386-99 (2015) requires that an employer "post and
maintain in places readily accessible to individuals in the
employer's employ printed statements concerning benefit rights,
claims for benefits, and such other matters relating to the
administration of this chapter as the department of labor and
industrial relations may by regulation prescribe." HAR § 12-10-
68 requires that an employer post "a printed statement, 'Notice
to Employees', [sic] issued by the director." The record shows
that Pali Momi met these requirements. But the record does not
show the contents of the Notice to Employees, or what Weis would
have learned had she read it or any other information Pali Momi
provided to employees about the Workers' Compensation Law. LIRAB
did not determine whether Weis's reliance on Hodges' statement
was reasonable. On remand, LIRAB should apply the proper
standards to decide whether Pali Momi should be estopped from
relying on the HRS § 386-82 statute of limitations.
(2) Weis argues Pali Momi should be deemed to have
accepted her claim because it didn't comply with HAR §§ 12-10-
68(b) and 12-10-73(a). HAR § 12-10-68(b) requires that an
employer give an injured employee a copy of a brochure,
"Highlights of the Hawaii Workers' Compensation Law," "within
three working days of notice of the injury[.]" Pali Momi
contends HAR § 12-10-68(b) "is not an issue on appeal," because
HAR § 12-10-30 requires that an employee file a WC-5 and HRS
§ 386-81 requires "written notice of the injury[.]" But HRS
§ 386-81 also provides that failure to give written notice "shall
not bar a claim under this chapter if . . . [t]he employer . . .
had knowledge of the injury[.]" HAR § 12-10-68(b) required that

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Pali Momi give the brochure to Weis in May 2012, when she asked
Hodges about filing a workers' compensation claim for TB. But
Weis cites no authority for the proposition that Pali Momi is
deemed to have accepted compensability under these circumstances,
and we find none. At most, Pali Momi's failure to give Weis the
brochure, like Weis' failure to read the poster in the lunchroom,
goes to whether Weis reasonably relied on what Hodges said. That
is something LIRAB must decide on remand.
HAR § 12-10-73(a) requires that an employer who denies
or does not accept compensability "submit a written report to the
director and the injured employee within thirty calendar days
supporting the denial." Failure to submit the report "shall
indicate acceptance of the injury by the employer" (emphasis
added). The regulation does not state that the employer's
failure to submit the report shall be an acceptance of
compensability, and Weis cites no authority supporting that
interpretation. Cf. Beck v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, Case
No. AB 2008-500, 2010 WL 11504543, at *5 (LIRAB Mar. 24, 2010)
(noting that neither HAR § 12-10-73 "nor any other provision in
Chapter 386, HRS provides that failure to issue a written denial
to Claimant operates as an acceptance of liability for a work
injury." (emphasis added)).
For these reasons, we vacate LIRAB's July 16, 2019
Decision and Order and remand for further proceedings consistent
with this summary disposition order.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 4, 2024.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Charles H. Brower, Acting Chief Judge
for Claimant-Appellant/
Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
Scott G. Leong,
Christine J. Kim, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
for Employer-Appellee/ Associate Judge
Appellee and Insurance
Carrier-Appellee/Appellee.

7