Summary
In Mokiao, the lack of documentation specifying exactly when claimant's doctor first identified her latent, psychological workplace injury justified LIRAB's failure to identify a singular date on which the effects of the injury became manifest.
Summary of this case from Skahan v. Stutts Constr. Co.Opinion
No. CAAP–12–0000582.
01-11-2016
Keiko MOKIAO, Claimant–Appellee, v. ATTRACTIONS HAWAI'I, Employer–Appellant, and Hawai'i Employers' Mutual Insurance Company, Insurance Carrier–Appellant.
Robert E. McKee, Jr., (Law Office of Robert E. McKee, Jr.), on the brief, for Employer–Appellant and Insurance Carrier–Appellant. Jeffrey M. Taylor, on the brief, for Claimant–Appellee.
SUMMARY DISPOSITIONAL ORDER
Affirmed.