Japanese Corporate Warriors in Pursuit of a Legal Remedy: The Story of Karoshi, or "Death from Overwork" in Japan. 21 UH L. Rev. 169.

Scope and nature of presumption discussed. 51 H. 312, 459 P.2d 541; 51 H. 632, 466 P.2d 439.

Substantial evidence defined. 51 H. 312, 459 P.2d 541; 53 H. 406, 495 P.2d 1164.

Where death might have been caused by pre-existing heart condition or by occupational exertions or by both, presumption of paragraph (1) was applicable. 51 H. 312, 459 P.2d 541.

Presumption places on employer the burden of going forward with the evidence as well as that of persuasion. 53 H. 32, 487 P.2d 278; 53 H. 406, 495 P.2d 1164.

If employer fails to produce substantial evidence to contrary, presumption dictates that claimant must win. 53 H. 161, 489 P.2d 419.

Presumption may be rebutted only by substantial evidence to the contrary. 53 H. 406, 495 P.2d 1164.

Evidence adduced by employer to show that death by heart attack was not work-connected held not to amount to substantial evidence. 53 H. 406, 495 P.2d 1164.

Presumption applies in §386-89(c) proceeding and places burden on employer. 56 H. 552, 545 P.2d 692.

Employer has burden of going forward with evidence and burden of ultimate persuasion, and all reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of claimant. 57 H. 296, 555 P.2d 855.

Proceeding for review brought by claimant under §386-89(c) is a "proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter". 57 H. 535, 560 P.2d 1292.

If employer fails to present substantial evidence to rebut presumption, employee must prevail. 59 H. 551, 584 P.2d 119.

Paragraph (1) applies from outset. Preliminary showing that injury occurred in course of employment not required. 63 H. 642, 636 P.2d 721.

Where labor and industrial relations appeals board failed expressly to acknowledge statutory presumption of compensability in its decision, issue deemed not to be whether board had explicitly referred to the presumption, but whether the presumption had been rebutted by substantial evidence; board’s conclusion that claimant was not engaged in employment-related activity when claimant sustained injury was supported by substantial evidence. 77 H. 100, 881 P.2d 1246.

Statutory presumption of paragraph (1) not triggered where claimant conceded that accident was not work-related. 77 H. 152, 883 P.2d 73.

Injury or death arises in course of employment when it takes place within the period of employment, at place where the employee may reasonably be, and while fulfilling duties or engaged in something incidental thereto. 1 H. App. 77, 613 P.2d 927.

Pursuant to requirements of §91-12, appeals board should generally state whether or not it has applied presumption of paragraph (1). But failure to do so in instant case did not prejudice appellant's substantial rights. 1 H. App. 77, 613 P.2d 927.

Substantial evidence defined. 1 H. App. 77, 613 P.2d 927.

Scope and nature of presumption discussed. 3 H. App. 39, 640 P.2d 1175.

Mentioned: 52 H. 242, 473 P.2d 561; 4 H. App. 26, 659 P.2d 77.