Hawaii Supreme Court Sets Contours for Experts on Compensability Questions

Case File

The Hawaii Supreme Court found that medical doctors' opinions on a collision didn't cut it when it came to determining whether a worker experienced a compensable injury. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Case

Lane v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., No. SCWC-20-0000084 (Hawaii 12/30/25)

What Happened?

A worker for a rental car company sustained a nasal fracture in a vehicle collision that occurred at work.

The director of Hawaii's Department of Labor and Industrial Relations determined that the worker's injury was a compensable work-related injury. On appeal, the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board reversed, concluding that the injury did not result from the collision. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the LIRAB, prompting the worker to appeal to the Hawaii Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Hawaii law creates a rebuttable presumption that an employee's claim is compensable. A claim for compensation is presumed to be a work-related injury in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary.

"Substantial evidence" signifies a high quantum of evidence that is, at a minimum, relevant and credible of a quality and quantity sufficient to justify a conclusion by a reasonable person that the injury is not work connected.

What the Hawaii Supreme Court Said

According to the Hawaii Supreme Court, the company did not adduce substantial evidence to meet its initial burden of production to rebut the presumption of compensability.

The court explained that the case rested on the question of whether the worker struck her nose on the steering wheel and, if she did, whether striking her nose on the wheel could have in any way caused her nose injury.

The problem, for the court, was that the LIRAB relied on a doctor's opinion that the force involved in the collision was insufficient to cause the worker to hit her nose on the wheel without anything to show how the doctor was qualified as a biomechanics or accident reconstruction. Additionally, his opinion was offered without calculation of the force generated by the collision or the amount of force transmitted to the worker's body.

Workers' Comp 101: The Hawaii Supreme Court looked to a handful of decisions regarding what it reasoned should be involved in expert opinions on vehicle collisions. What follows is the lessons the court pulled from those cases.

Udac v. Takata Corp., 214 P.3d 1133 (Hawaii Ct. App. 2009). An expert who had a medical degree and an engineering degree and taught courses in biomechanics and injury causation analysis testified that he followed five steps in conduction his injury causation analysis:

(1) Vehicle motion or vehicle dynamics

(2) Occupant motion or occupant kinematics

(3) Biomechanics

(4) Injury potential/injury analysis

(5) Review of medical records

Thomas v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Oregon, 356 P.3d 91 (Or. App. 2015). An expert opinion on the biomechanics of a motor vehicle collision opined as to whether the forces associated with the collision were sufficient to cause injury to the vehicle occupant. The expert testified to his education and training, which included a bachelor's degree in engineering, a master's degree in biomedical engineering, and Ph.D. in biomedical engineering. The court considered the expert's calculation of the collision force applied to the driver's vehicle.

State ex rel. Jones v. Recht, 655 S.E. 2d 126 (W. Va. 2007). A medical doctor's testimony must be strictly restricted to medical testimony and issues regarding the force of impact must be redirected to experts qualified in accident reconstruction or biomechanics.

Maines v. Fox, 190 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016). A medical doctor with expertise in biomechanical engineering should have been able to testify to forces involved in a motor vehicle collision and whether those forces were enough to cause claimant's injuries.

Johnston-Forbes v. Matsunaga, 333 P.3d 388 (Wash. 2014). Biomechanics expert allowed to testify where the expert reviewed engineering data on both vehicles, bumper crash test information, and performed impact tests on both bumpers.

Wilson v. Rivers, 593 S.E.2d 603 (S.C. 2004). Finding that a medical expert with a degree in physiology and training in biomechanics who conducted over 800 impact and injury causation analyses and had been qualified as an expert in biomechanics in other states was qualified to testify to forces involved in a motor vehicle collision.

The Hawaii Supreme Court reasoned that there was no showing through testimony, curricula vitae, or other relevant evidence that the doctors possessed the requisite expertise or were otherwise qualified to render forensic biometrics, vehicular accident reconstruction, or engineering opinions relating to the collision.

Ultimately, the court found that the company failed to produce substantial evidence that expressly, directly, and specifically rebutted the presumption that the worker's nasal injury was work-related. Thus, the Hawaii Supreme Court found that the LIRAB erred in concluding that the worker's injury was not a compensable injury.

Verdict: The Hawaii Supreme Court held that the LIRAB's decision was, in part, clearly erroneous and vacated the ICA's judgment on appeal. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the DLIR Director's decision finding that the worker's injury was compensable and remanded the case to the LIRAB.

Takeaway

Under Hawaii workers' compensation law, generalized medical opinions do not constitute substantial evidence, especially where collision reconstruction and biometrics are involved.

Share This Article: