Gour v. The Pepsi Bottling Group

── Gour v. The Pepsi Bottling Group ── Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Date: May 11, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 11-MAY-2026 07:54 AM Dkt. 53 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI MARTIN S. GOUR, Claimant/Appellant-Appellant, v. THE PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, Employer/Appellee-Appellee, and SEDGWICK CMS HAWAII, Insurance Carrier/Appellee-Appellee APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD (CASE NO. AB 2019-170(H); DCD NO. 1-12-00430) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Leonard and Guidry, JJ.) Self-represented Claimant/Appellant-Appellant Martin S. Gour (Gour) appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board's (LIRAB) "Decision and Order" (Order) filed on October 2, 2024. Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we affirm the Order. Gour's opening brief fails to comply with Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b). Among other things, the opening brief does not set forth the points of error being raised on appeal. Nevertheless, "a pro se litigant's failure to state the alleged errors of the lower court in precise compliance with HRAP Rule 28(b) . . . will not foreclose consideration of the appeal, so long as the litigant's argument can reasonably be discerned." Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368, 380, 465 P.3d 815, 827 (2020) (cleaned up). Here, it appears that Gour challenges the LIRAB's conclusion that his workers' compensation benefits "should remain suspended, pursuant to [Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §] 386-79 [(2015)]." Our review of the LIRAB's Order is governed by HRS § 91-14(g) (Supp. 2016), which provides, Upon review of the record, the court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case with instructions for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision and order if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, conclusions, decisions, or orders are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Affected by other error of law; 2  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER (5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. See also Tam v. Kaiser Permanente, 94 Hawaiʻi 487, 494, 17 P.3d 219, 226 (2001). Under HRS § 91-14(g), conclusions of law are reviewable under subsections (1), (2), and (4); questions regarding procedural defects are reviewable under subsection (3); [findings of fact] are reviewable under subsection (5); and an agency's exercise of discretion is reviewab