§386-3  Injuries covered.  (a)  If anemployee suffers personal injury either by accident arising out of and in thecourse of the employment or by disease proximately caused by or resulting fromthe nature of the employment, the employee's employer or the specialcompensation fund shall pay compensation to the employee or the employee'sdependents as provided in this chapter.

Accident arising out of and in the course ofthe employment includes the wilful act of a third person directed against anemployee because of the employee's employment.

(b)  No compensation shall be allowed for aninjury incurred by an employee by the employee's wilful intention to injureoneself or another by actively engaging in any unprovoked non-work relatedphysical altercation other than in self-defense, or by the employee'sintoxication.

(c)  A claim for mental stress resulting solelyfrom disciplinary action taken in good faith by the employer shall not beallowed; provided that if a collective bargaining agreement or other employmentagreement specifies a different standard than good faith for disciplinaryactions, the standards set in the collective bargaining agreement or otheremployment agreement shall be applied in lieu of the good faith standard.  Forpurposes of this subsection, the standards set in the collective bargainingagreement or other employment agreement shall be applied in any proceedingbefore the department, the appellate board, and the appellate courts. [L 1963,c 116, pt of §1; Supp, §97-3; HRS §386-3; gen ch 1985; am L 1995, c 234, §6; amL 1998, c 224, §2]

 

Cross References

 

  Police officers injured while off duty covered, see §52D-15.

 

Attorney General Opinions

 

  Where employee at work is injured and dies as a result of anassault by a third party, compensation should be awarded notwithstanding theassault may have arisen from personal matters.  Att. Gen. Op. 73-4.

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  Suicide was compensable injury by disease caused by theemployment.  Haw Supp, 4 HBJ, Nov. 1966, at 24.

  Death by heart attack was not compensable because there wasno causal relationship between work and death.  Haw Supp, 5 HBJ 38.

  Japanese Corporate Warriors in Pursuit of a Legal Remedy: The Story of  Karoshi, or "Death from Overwork" in Japan.  21 UH L. Rev. 169.

  Mitchell v. State and HRS §386-3:  Workers' CompensationReform in the State of Hawai‘i.  21 UH L. Rev. 807.

  Hawai‘i's Workers' Compensation Scheme:  An Employer'sLicense to Kill?  29 UH L. Rev. 211.

 

Case Notes

 

  Definitions:  "Out of" and "in the courseof".  24 H. 324. "By accident", "arising out of", and"course of employment".  26 H. 785; 37 H. 556; 38 H. 384; 40 H. 660. Course of employment.  66 F. Supp. 875; 34 H. 221.  Covers workers undernonmaritime contract of employment injured aboard ship.  26 H. 737.

  Causal connection.  33 H. 576.

  Cancer.  34 H. 717.  On death from cerebral hemorrhage asarising out of employment.  43 H. 94.  Reasonable evidence of diseaseproximately caused.  43 H. 337.

  Where employee is injured on a business trip, employee'spersonal activities preceding the business activity are immaterial.  52 H. 242,473 P.2d 561.

  Mental disabilities arising out of employment arecompensable. 53 H. 32, 487 P.2d 278.

  Injury occurring off the premises during a coffee break iscompensable if it occurred in course of reasonable and necessary activityincident to such break.  54 H. 66, 502 P.2d 1399.

  Influenza is a compensable injury.  59 H. 551, 584 P.2d 119.

  "Work connection" test to decide whether heartattack arose out of and in course of employment.  63 H. 642, 636 P.2d 721.

  Employee suffered work-related injury when employee sustaineda psychogenic disability due to employee's employment.  714 F. Supp. 1108.

  Claimant’s act of returning to claimant’s employer’s premisesfor the sole purpose of retrieving a piece of cake for claimant’s personalenjoyment bore no relation to an incident or condition of claimant’semployment; accordingly, there was no causal connection between claimant’sinjury and any incident or condition of that employment.  77 H. 100, 881 P.2d1246.

  Employee's psychological stress injury not compensable asinjury was direct consequence of disciplinary action imposed on employee foraltering time cards and this prohibited conduct exceeded bounds of employmentduties.  80 H. 120, 906 P.2d 127.

  Employee's injury suffered in crossing public street betweenemployer's office and parking lot not in course of employment as parking lotnot part of employer's "premises"; employer's office lease merelyallowed employees to enter into independent parking stall rental contract withbuilding management.  80 H. 150, 907 P.2d 101.

  Injury did not arise in the course of employment whereassault on claimant, though occurring on employer's premises, emanated frompersonal dispute over auto accident.  80 H. 442, 911 P.2d 77.

  Where teacher-claimant allegedly administered corporalpunishment in violation of work-rule prohibiting such conduct, claimantnevertheless sustained compensable stress-related injury from subsequentdiscipline as claimant was acting within course of employment at time ofalleged misconduct.  85 H. 250, 942 P.2d 514.

  An employee's injury caused by a disease is compensable as an"injury by disease", pursuant to this section, when the disease (1)is caused by conditions that are characteristic of or peculiar to theparticular trade, occupation, or employment, (2) results from employee's actualexposure to such working conditions, and (3) is due to causes in excess of theordinary hazards of employment in general.  94 H. 70, 9 P.3d 382.

  In order to identify the "date of injury" requiredby the department of labor in connection with the filing of a workers'compensation claim under §386-82, a claimant in a case arising under the"injury-by-disease" prong of this section may rely upon the last dayof employment as the "date of disability", but this "date ofdisability" may also be the date of diagnosis of the disabling condition. 94 H. 70, 9 P.3d 382.

  Under the doctrine of substantial deviation, employee wasprecluded from compensability for injuries received when trying to returnemployer's vehicle to employer's baseyard over seven hours after normal workdayended where employee left the scope of employment to embark on a purelypersonal and unauthorized journey to correct a sewer line problem ongirlfriend's property halfway around the island, and had dinner, a few beersand a nap at the girlfriend's house.  100 H. 285, 59 P.3d 920.

  Although employee was not physically injured while takingpromotion test, psychological injuries employee sustained caused by employee'sdissatisfaction with the process for ranking individuals and the overallgrievance and promotion process was compensable; injury that stemmed from thatpromotion process was incidental to the employment and resulted from anactivity that served an important interest of the employer.  100 H. 481, 60P.3d 882.

  Employee’s injury not compensable where employee’s injuryoccurred on public sidewalk outside of employer’s business premises, did notoccur during a lunch or recreation period, did not occur as an incident ofemployee’s employment, employer did not expressly or impliedly bringafter-hours drinking party within employee’s orbit of employment and party didnot benefit employer in any way.  87 H. 492 (App.), 960 P.2d 162.

  Cited:  2 F. Supp. 2d 1295.

  Cited:  24 H. 731, 733.