[Download] "Freitas v. Hawaiian Airlines" by In the Intermediate Court of Appeals of the State of Hawaii * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Freitas v. Hawaiian Airlines
- Author : In the Intermediate Court of Appeals of the State of Hawaii
- Release Date : January 27, 2004
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 59 KB
Description
In this workers compensation case, Ursula M.O. Freitas (Freitas or Claimant) appeals, pro se, the November 4, 2002 order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (the Board) that denied her October 11, 2002 motion for reconsideration of the Boards September 11, 2002 decision and order. The Boards September 11, 2002 decision and order dismissed Freitas April 26, 2001 appeal to the Board, "for Claimants obstruction of Employers attempts to complete discovery, Claimants use of dilatory tactics, and Claimants failure to comply with orders of this Board." Upon an assiduous review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and giving careful consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve Freitas points of error on appeal as follows: 1. Inasmuch as Freitas does not specify or argue error in connection with the November 4, 2002 order of the Board that denied her October 11, 2002 motion for reconsideration, we will not review, and therefore affirm, the Boards November 4, 2002 order. See Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4) (2003); Wright v. Chatman, 2 Haw. App. 74, 76-77, 625 P.2d 1060, 1062 (1981); HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) (2003); Weinberg v. Mauch, 78 Hawaii 40, 49, 890 P.2d 277, 286 (1995); In re Waiola O Molokai, Inc., No. 22250, slip op. at 73 n.33 (Haw. filed January 29, 2004). 2. Regarding the Boards September 11, 2002 decision and order that dismissed Freitas appeal to the Board, we conclude the Boards decision and order was (1) made upon lawful procedure, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14(g)(3) (1993); Korsak v. Hawaii Permanente Med. Group, Inc., 94 Hawaii 297, 302, 12 P.3d 1238, 1243 (2000); Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) § 12-47-48(a); Intl. Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Hawaiian Tel. Co., 68 Haw. 316, 323, 713 P.2d 943, 950-51 (1986), and (2) was not an abuse of discretion. HRS § 91-14(g)(6); Korsak, 94 Hawaii at 302, 12 P.3d at 1243; HAR § 12-47-48(a); S. Foods Group, L.P. v. State, Dept. of Educ., 89 Hawaii 443, 452-53, 974 P.2d 1033, 1042-43 (1999). The record amply demonstrates that Freitas repeated refusals to permit discovery, to comply with orders of the Board upon Employers numerous motions to compel, and to heed sanctions of the Board for her noncompliance, were chronic, obdurate and unregenerate. Richardson v. Lane, 6 Haw. App. 614, 619, 736 P.2d 63, 67 (1987). 3. In her remaining cognizable point of error on appeal, Freitas contends the Boards February 6, 2002 order that denied her February 5, 2002 motion to continue hearing on Employers motion to compel medical examination was an abuse of discretion. Because Freitas argument in this respect lacks support in the record, we disagree. Therefore,