A Hawai‘i appellate court has partially vacated an order compelling a former employee to undergo two additional independent medical examinations, marking the latest development in a workers’ compensation dispute that has stretched across nearly two decades.
The ruling, issued April 17 by the Intermediate Court of Appeals of the State of Hawai‘i, centers on a claim brought by Lola L. Suzuki, a former employee of American Healthways, Inc., who reported injuring her right wrist in November 2006. The company and its insurance carrier, St. Paul Travelers, sought two more examinations related to her subsequent claims of a neck injury and sleep disorder - conditions Suzuki contended were caused by a prior medical evaluation in 2007.
At issue in the appeal was a critical procedural omission. The Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (LIRAB) had granted the employer’s motions for additional examinations without issuing the necessary findings of fact or conclusions of law, as required under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 386-79(b). That statute allows only one examination per case unless the employer can show “good and valid reasons” for more.
Suzuki first filed her injury report on December 15, 2006. She underwent her initial independent medical examination (IME) in March 2007, with orthopedic surgeon Dr. Brian Mihara. Suzuki later claimed that the evaluation itself led to an injury in her left arm. A second IME followed in July of the same year, conducted by Dr. Peter Lum. At a Department of Labor hearing in September 2007, Suzuki expanded her claims to include a neck injury and sleep disorder allegedly stemming from the March examination.
The director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations ruled in October 2007 that the arm injuries were compensable, but denied her claims related to the neck and sleep disorder. Suzuki appealed to the LIRAB, which later consolidated her cases.
In 2009, she underwent yet another IME, this time with Dr. Lorne Direnfeld, whose examination yielded a 69-page report. In 2011, Suzuki filed fraud complaints with the Department of Labor against Direnfeld and the employer’s legal team, alleging misrepresentation. These claims were also denied, prompting further appeals.
By 2018, the LIRAB had issued a third amended pretrial order identifying, among other issues, whether Suzuki’s additional injuries could be traced to the March 2007 IME - and whether Dr. Direnfeld had committed fraud in his evaluation.
In late 2021, the employer again moved to compel Suzuki to attend two new IMEs focused on her lingering complaints. Suzuki resisted, arguing that there was no statutory justification under § 386-79(b). She also sought partial summary judgment and requested sanctions against the employer.
The LIRAB sided with the employer following a December 2021 hearing, compelling the examinations and denying Suzuki’s motions. She then sought reconsideration, which was treated as an appeal.
Initially, the Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissed her appeal in 2022, deeming the order non-final. But the Hawai‘i Supreme Court reversed that determination in Suzuki v. Am. Healthways, Inc., 153 Hawai‘i 265 (2023), concluding that an order compelling an IME is immediately appealable under HRS § 91-14(a), since it could deprive a party of meaningful relief.
On remand, the appellate court found that LIRAB had erred in issuing the IME order without factual or legal support. It vacated that portion of the 2021 order and sent the case back for further proceedings.
Suzuki’s other appeals - concerning her motion for partial summary judgment and request for sanctions - were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as those matters were not appealable at the time.
Although no insurance policy language was directly at issue, the case casts a spotlight on the procedural safeguards built into Hawai‘i’s workers’ compensation system. Under state law, employers and insurers must not only justify but clearly document the need for more than one medical examination.
The ruling carries practical consequences for insurers, claims managers, and legal professionals who navigate the often Byzantine world of long-term compensation claims. Now entering its nineteenth year, Suzuki’s case stands as a testament to the complexity - and the stakes - of administrative precision in such proceedings.
