of medical [evidence] for the pm-poses of determining legal causation should be whether the employment situation in any ivay contributed to the employee’s injuiy.” Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis added). If the evidence is substantial, the Board must “weigh and consider the evidence offered by the employer against the evidence offered by claimants supportive of the claim.” Acoustic, 51 Haw. at 317, 459 P.2d at 544. Finally, if, as a result of the weighing, “there is a reasonable doubt as to whether an injury is work-connected, it must be resolved in favor of the claimant.” Chung, 63 Haw. at 651, 636 P.2d at 727 (citing Akamine, 58 Haw. at 409, 495 P.2d at 1166). See also Survivors of Timothy Freitas, Dec. v. Pacific Contractors Co., 1 Haw. App. 77, 85-86, 613 P.2d 927, 932-33 (1980) (<HOLDING>) (footnote omitted). This reasonable doubt
holding substantial evidence is defined as more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance and consists of such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a eonclusion  holding that it was error to admit into evidence a gun purchased by the defendant which was not connected with the charged crimes holding that because pennsylvania law limited a state courts review of a zoning boards decision to the issue whether the boards determinations were supported by substantial evidence the rookerfeldman doctrine did not prevent the plaintiffs from filing a federal action claiming that the zoning board had engaged in disability discrimination following a state courts review of the boards determinations holding that the appeals boards eonclusion was supported by substantial evidence which left no reasonable doubt as to whether the claim was work connected holding that a finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole if it would have been possible for a reasonable jury to reach the boards conclusion