No. SCWC-14-0000594 ,Thursday, January 18, 2018, 10 a.m.

JAY D. CADIZ, Petitioner/Claimant-Appellant, vs. QSI, INC., Respondent/Employer-Appellee, and FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY OF HAWAI I, LTD., Respondent/Insurance Carrier-Appellee.

The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorneys for Petitioner:

Stanford H. Masui and Erin Masui
Attorney for Respondents:

Shawn L.M. Benton

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 09/11/17.

COURT: MER, CJ; PAN, SSM, RWP, and MDW, JJ.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

This case arises out of a workers’ compensation claim for compensation for illnesses and symptoms related to mold exposure.

The claimant presents three issues: (1) whether the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (LIRAB) has the statutory power to vacate a workers’ compensation claim rather than consider the merits; (2) whether the LIRAB (and later the Intermediate Court of Appeals) misapplied the substantial evidence standard of proof; and (3) whether the ICA misconstrued Van Ness v. State, Dep’t of Educ., 131 Hawaii 545, 560, 319 P.3d 464, 479 (2014) (describing the traditional “unitary test” used to determine whether the conditions or incidents of a worker’s employment, rather than the nature of his or her job, caused a compensable injury by disease) as precluding the test set forth in Flor v. Holguin, 94 Hawaii 70, 9 P.3d 382 (2000) (describing a three-part test used to determine the compensability of an occupational disease under Hawaii’s workers’ compensation law).