Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 386
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-32 (2026)

  Partial disability

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §386-32  Partial disability.  (a)  Permanent partial disability.  Where a work injury causes permanent partial disability, the employer shall pay the injured worker compensation in an amount determined by multiplying the effective maximum weekly benefit rate prescribed in section 386-31 by the number of weeks specified for the disability as follows:

     Thumb.  For the loss of thumb, seventy-five weeks;

     First finger.  For the loss of a first finger, commonly called index finger, forty-six weeks;

     Second finger.  For the loss of a second finger, commonly called the middle finger, thirty weeks;

     Third finger.  For the loss of a third finger, commonly called the ring finger, twenty-five weeks;

     Fourth finger.  For the loss of a fourth finger, commonly called the little finger, fifteen weeks;

     Phalanx of thumb or finger.  Loss of the first phalanx of the thumb shall be equal to the loss of three-fourths of the thumb, and compensation shall be three-fourths of the amount above specified for the loss of the thumb.  The loss of the first phalanx of any finger shall be equal to the loss of one-half of the finger, and compensation shall be one-half of the amount above specified for loss of the finger.  The loss of more than one phalanx of the thumb or any finger shall be considered as loss of the entire thumb or finger;

     Great toe.  For the loss of a great toe, thirty-eight weeks;

     Other toes.  For the loss of one of the toes other than the great toe, sixteen weeks;

     Phalanx of toe.  Loss of the first phalanx of any toe shall be equal to the loss of one-half of the toe, and the compensation shall be one-half of the amount specified for the loss of the toe.  The loss of more than one phalanx of any toe shall be considered as the loss of the entire toe;

     Hand.  For the loss of a hand, two hundred forty-four weeks;

     Arm.  For the loss of an arm, three hundred twelve weeks;

     Foot.  For the loss of a foot, two hundred five weeks;

     Leg.  For the loss of a leg, two hundred eighty-eight weeks;

     Eye.  For the loss of an eye by enucleation, one hundred sixty weeks.  For the loss of vision in an eye, one hundred forty weeks.  Loss of binocular vision or of eighty per cent of the vision of an eye shall be considered loss of vision of the eye;

     Ear.  For the permanent and complete loss of hearing in both ears, two hundred weeks.  For the permanent and complete loss of hearing in one ear, fifty-two weeks.  For the loss of both ears, eighty weeks.  For the loss of one ear, forty weeks;

     Loss of use.  Permanent loss of the use of a hand, arm, foot, leg, thumb, finger, toe, or phalanx shall be equal to and compensated as the loss of a hand, arm, foot, leg, thumb, finger, toe, or phalanx;

     Partial loss or loss of use of member named in schedule.  Where a work injury causes permanent partial disability resulting from partial loss of use of a member named in this schedule, and where the disability is not otherwise compensated in this schedule, compensation shall be paid for a period that stands in the same proportion to the period specified for the total loss or loss of use of the member as the partial loss or loss of use of that member stands to the total loss or loss of use thereof;

     More than one finger or toe of same hand or foot.  In cases of permanent partial disability resulting from simultaneous injury to the thumb and one or more fingers of one hand, or to two or more fingers of one hand, or to the great toe and one or more toes other than the great toe of one foot, or to two or more toes other than the great toe of one foot, the disability may be rated as a partial loss or loss of use of the hand or the foot and the period of benefit payments shall be measured accordingly.  In no case shall the compensation for loss or loss of use of more than one finger or toe of the same hand or foot exceed the amount provided in this schedule for the loss of a hand or foot;

     Amputation.  Amputation between the elbow and the wrist shall be rated as the equivalent of the loss of a hand. Amputation between the knee and the ankle shall be rated as the equivalent of the loss of a foot.  Amputation at or above the elbow shall be rated as the loss of an arm.  Amputation at or above the knee shall be rated as the loss of a leg;

     Disfigurement.  In cases of personal injury resulting in disfigurement the director may award compensation not to exceed $30,000 as the director deems proper and equitable in view of the disfigurement.  Disfigurement shall be separate from other permanent partial disabilities and shall include scarring and other disfiguring consequences caused by medical, surgical, and hospital treatment of the employee;

     Other cases.  In all other cases of permanent partial disability resulting from the loss or loss of use of a part of the body or from the impairment of any physical function, weekly benefits shall be paid at the rate and subject to the limitations specified in this subsection for a period that bears the same relation to a period named in the schedule as the disability sustained bears to a comparable disability named in the schedule.  In cases in which the permanent partial disability must be rated as a percentage of the total loss or impairment of a physical or mental function of the whole person, the maximum compensation shall be computed on the basis of the corresponding percentage of the product of three hundred twelve times the effective maximum weekly benefit rate prescribed in section 386-31.

     Payment of compensation for permanent partial disability.  Compensation for permanent partial disability shall be paid in weekly installments at the rate of sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the worker's average weekly wage, subject to the limitations on weekly benefit rates prescribed in section 386-31.

     Unconditional nature and time of commencement of payment.  Compensation for permanent partial disability shall be paid regardless of the earnings of the disabled employee subsequent to the injury.  Payments shall not commence until after termination of any temporary total disability that may be caused by the injury.

     (b)  Temporary partial disability.  Where a work injury causes partial disability, not determined to be permanent, which diminishes the employee's capacity for work, the employer, beginning with the first day of the disability and during the continuance thereof, shall pay the injured employee weekly benefits equal to sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the difference between the employee's average weekly wages before the injury and the employee's weekly earnings thereafter, subject to the schedule for the maximum and minimum weekly benefit rates prescribed in section 386-31.

     (c)  Provisions common to permanent and temporary partial disability.  No determination of partial disability shall be made until two weeks from the date of the injury. [L 1963, c 116, pt of §1; am L 1965, c 106, §1; Supp, §97-31; am L 1967, c 138, §2; HRS §386-32; am L 1969, c 25, §1; am L 1970, c 100, §1 and c 126, §1; am L 1972, c 42, §2; am L 1973, c 47, §1; am L 1974, c 153, §3; gen ch 1985; am L 1992, c 67, §1; am L 1995, c 234, §9]

 

Case Notes

 

  Right to compensation presupposes disability for work, either total or partial.  34 H. 317 (1937).

  Disfigurement benefits may be awarded in addition to permanent total disability benefits.  59 H. 409, 583 P.2d 321 (1978).

  Exclusiveness of scheduled allowances rejected.  67 H. 16, 675 P.2d 770 (1984).

  Injury to one finger may constitute hand disability.  67 H. 16, 675 P.2d 770 (1984).

  A decision that finally adjudicates the matter of medical and temporary disability benefits under §§386-21, 386-31(b), and subsection (b) is an appealable final order under §91-14(a), even though the matter of permanent disability benefits under §386-31(a) and subsection (a) has been left for later determination.  89 H. 436, 974 P.2d 1026 (1999).

  Odd-lot doctrine.  2 H. App. 659, 638 P.2d 1381 (1982); 8 H. App. 543, 812 P.2d 1199 (1991).

  Appeals board was not limited to basing its partial permanent disability (PPD) award on the impairment of claimant's great toe, but could determine the extent to which the effects of claimant's great toe injury resulted in the impairment of claimant's whole body where the effects of an injury to a scheduled member extended to other parts of the body not included in subsection (a)'s schedule of awards or to the whole person; subsection (a) thus entitled claimant to a PPD award based on the impairment of claimant's great toe if that award exceeded the appeals board's award based on the impairment of claimant's whole person.  119 H. 304 (App.), 196 P.3d 306 (2008).

  Cited:  24 H. 731, 733 (1919).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1971–2024 · leading case: Kapuwai v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, Dep't of Parks & Rec., 211 P.3d 750 (Haw. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kapuwai v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, Dep't of Parks & Rec., 211 P.3d 750 (Haw. 2009). · cites it 30× “Kapuwai appealed the LIRAB's decision to the ICA, arguing that the LIRAB should have converted the "whole person" rating to a PPD rating of the great toe, pursuant to HRS § 386-32(a) (Supp.2001), quoted infra, and should have granted his request for attorney's fees and costs.”
Kapuwai v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, Dep't of Parks & Rec., 196 P.3d 306 (Haw. App. 2008). · cites it 23× “to an award based on the impairment of his right great toe, a specific body part covered by the schedule of awards for PPD under HRS § 386-32(a). The LIRAB denied Ka-puwai’s motion for reconsideration on March 29, 2006.”
Tabieros v. Clark Equip. Co., 944 P.2d 1279 (Haw. 1997). · cites it 6× “1996), governing workers’ compensation for “permanent partial disability,” is illustrative of the foregoing principles; the statute provides in relevant part: In .”
Cuarisma v. Urban Painters, Ltd., 583 P.2d 321 (Haw. 1978). · cites it 20× “Benefits for permanent and temporary partial disability were provided by HRS § 386-32, which specified in subsection (a) the benefit to be awarded in cases of permanent partial disability involving the loss of a designated body member or bodily function.”
Flor v. Holguin, 9 P.3d 382 (Haw. 2000). · cites it 6× “LIRAB determined that twenty-five percent of Kalapodes’s disability was due to the injury received while working for one employer, five percent was due to the injury received while working for another, and the remaining seventy percent was not work-related, and ordered that the…”
Cabatbat v. Cnty. of Hawai'i, Dep't of Water Supply, 78 P.3d 756 (Haw. 2003). · cites it 4× “) Pursuant to HRS § 386-32 (1993 & Supp.2002), “[wjhere a work injury causes permanent partial disability, the employer shall pay the injured worker compensation in an amount” computed under HRS § 386-32.”
Respicio v. Waialua Sugar Co., 675 P.2d 770 (Haw. 1984). · cites it 4× “§ 386-32(a) 1 is clearly *17 erroneous. Based on the trend away from exclusive application of comprehensive schedules in the area of workers’ compensation law, we find there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Board’s finding.”
Duque v. Hilton Hawaiian Vill., 98 P.3d 640 (Haw. 2004). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to HRS §§ 386-32 (Supp.2003) and 386-73 (1993), the Director of the DLIR is required to determine the extent of permanent disability in all cases involving worker's compensation matters.”
Wittig v. Allianz, A.G., 145 P.3d 738 (Haw. App. 2006). “Inasmuch as Plaintiff would be foregoing her future rights, Employer/Carrier offered Plaintiff an additional consideration of $15,000 for the “full wash” settlement, above and beyond its liability for permanent indemnity benefits under Section 386-32. Because the Plaintiff had…”
Hummel v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 749 F. Supp. 1023 (D. Haw. 1990). · cites it 2× “Therefore, this court finds that a claim under HRS § 386-32(2) “arises under” the Hawaii workers’ compensation laws and is non-removable pursuant to 28 U.”
Twentieth Century Furniture, Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Appeal Bd., 482 P.2d 151 (Haw. 1971). · cites it 2× “1955, as amended, presently HRS § 386-32, to receive a weekly benefit equal to 66 2/3% of his average weekly wages for a period of 73.”
Kalapodes v. E. E. Black, Ltd., 669 P.2d 635 (Haw. 1983). · cites it 2× “The Board consequently ordered Black and PCC to pay Kalapodes corresponding permanent partial disability compensation under HRS § 386-32(a) and, pursuant to HRS § 386-33, ordered the SCF to pay the remaining 70% of Kalapodes’s compensation award.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-32(2) — 1 case
Hummel v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 749 F. Supp. 1023 (D. Haw. 1990). “Therefore, this court finds that a claim under HRS § 386-32(2) “arises under” the Hawaii workers’ compensation laws and is non-removable pursuant to 28 U.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-32(a) — 16 cases
Kapuwai v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, Dep't of Parks & Rec., 211 P.3d 750 (Haw. 2009). “Kapuwai appealed the LIRAB's decision to the ICA, arguing that the LIRAB should have converted the "whole person" rating to a PPD rating of the great toe, pursuant to HRS § 386-32(a) (Supp.2001), quoted infra, and should have granted his request for attorney's fees and costs.”
Kapuwai v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, Dep't of Parks & Rec., 196 P.3d 306 (Haw. App. 2008). “to an award based on the impairment of his right great toe, a specific body part covered by the schedule of awards for PPD under HRS § 386-32(a). The LIRAB denied Ka-puwai’s motion for reconsideration on March 29, 2006.”
Tabieros v. Clark Equip. Co., 944 P.2d 1279 (Haw. 1997). “1996), governing workers’ compensation for “permanent partial disability,” is illustrative of the foregoing principles; the statute provides in relevant part: In .”
Flor v. Holguin, 9 P.3d 382 (Haw. 2000). “LIRAB determined that twenty-five percent of Kalapodes’s disability was due to the injury received while working for one employer, five percent was due to the injury received while working for another, and the remaining seventy percent was not work-related, and ordered that the…”
Cuarisma v. Urban Painters, Ltd., 583 P.2d 321 (Haw. 1978). “Benefits for permanent and temporary partial disability were provided by HRS § 386-32, which specified in subsection (a) the benefit to be awarded in cases of permanent partial disability involving the loss of a designated body member or bodily function.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-32(b) — 4 cases
Tabieros v. Clark Equip. Co., 944 P.2d 1279 (Haw. 1997). “1996), governing workers’ compensation for “permanent partial disability,” is illustrative of the foregoing principles; the statute provides in relevant part: In .”
Cuarisma v. Urban Painters, Ltd., 583 P.2d 321 (Haw. 1978). “Benefits for permanent and temporary partial disability were provided by HRS § 386-32, which specified in subsection (a) the benefit to be awarded in cases of permanent partial disability involving the loss of a designated body member or bodily function.”
Cabico v. Liberty Dialysis – Hawaii, LLC, 503 P.3d 971 (Haw. App. 2022).
Scarlett v. Macy's West Stores, Inc., 153 Haw. 261 (Haw. App. 2023).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-32(c) — 1 case
Cuarisma v. Urban Painters, Ltd., 583 P.2d 321 (Haw. 1978). “Benefits for permanent and temporary partial disability were provided by HRS § 386-32, which specified in subsection (a) the benefit to be awarded in cases of permanent partial disability involving the loss of a designated body member or bodily function.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.