Holmes v. Hooper Holmes, Inc.

NO. 22790

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

ELIZABETH J. HOLMES, Plaintiff-Appellant

vs.

HOOPER HOLMES, INC., a Hawaii corporation; MICHAEL

UPCHURCH, individually and in his official capacity as

Branch Manager for HOOPER HOLMES, INC.; JOHN DOES 1-10;

JANE DOES 1-10; DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES 1-10; DOE

CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE

UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS 1-10; DOE GOVERNMENTAL

ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT

(CIV. NO. 97-1294-04)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, JJ., and

Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Lim,

in place of Acoba, J., recused)

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve the plaintiff-appellant Elizabeth J. Holmes's points of error as follows:

(1) Holmes claims that the circuit court committed error with respect to rulings regarding jury instructions and the special verdict form. We hold that any error regarding the substance of the jury instructions and special verdict form was harmless, inasmuch as the record reflects that the jury neither reached any of the issues implicating any of the challenged instructions nor any of the challenged portions of the special verdict form. See Craft v. Peebles, 78 Hawaii 287 (1995); Stratis v. Pacific Ins. Co., Ltd., 7 Haw. App. 1, 739 P.2d 251 (1987).

(2) Holmes argues that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment against her and in favor of the defendants with respect to her claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. We hold that her claim was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, inasmuch as the defendants were Holmes's employer and fellow employee. See Hawaii Revised Statutes § 386-5 (1993); Marshall v. University of Hawaii, 9 Haw. App. 21, 821 P.2d 937 (1991); see also Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 82 Hawaii 1, 919 P.2d 263 (1996).

(3) Holmes argues that the circuit court erred in denying her motion to compel discovery. We hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion, inasmuch as Holmes's motion to compel discovery was untimely. See Acoba v. General Tire, Inc., 92 Hawaii 1, 986 P.2d 288 (1999). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the first circuit court, filed on August 19, 1999, from which the appeal is taken, is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, July 25, 2000.

On the briefs:

Elizabeth J. Fujiwara and

Joyce M. Brown for the

plaintiff-appellee

Elizabeth J. Holmes

Lynne T. Toyofuku, Jared H.

Jossem, and J. Denice

Von Gnechten (of Jossem

& Toyofuku) for

the defendants-appellees

Hooper Holmes, Inc. and

Michael Upchurch