Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1996, Petitioner suffered a work-related injury while employed by Employer. Petitioner was subsequently awarded temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. In 2008, Employer denied Petitioner’s request that he be fitted for a neuromonics device for treatment of his tinnitus condition and gave notice of its intent to terminate TTD payments. Petitioner requested a hearing challenging Employer’s actions. The Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Disability Compensation Division, determined that Petitioner was not entitled to a neuromonics device and that he was no longer entitled to TTD benefits because he was able to resume work. The Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (LIRAB) affirmed the Director’s decision. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed LIRAB’s decision and order. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment and LIRAB’s decision and order, holding (1) there was substantial evidence to show that the neuromonics device was reasonably needed for treating Petitioner’s tinnitus; and (2) based on that finding, Petitioner was not medically stable and unable to return to work, and therefore, Petitioner was entitled to reinstatement of TTD payments. View "Pulawa v. Oahu Constr. Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was found guilty of one each each of harassment and trespass. After a restitution hearing, the district court ordered Defendant to pay restitution to the complaining witness, which included restitution for a ten-day period when the complaining witness was unable to work due to her injuries. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) vacated the restitution order, holding that lost wages are not a compensable category of restitution pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. 706-646. The Supreme Court vacated in part the ICA’s judgment and affirmed the district court’s order of restitution as it related to lost wages, holding (1) section 706-646 permits restitution for reasonable and verified lost wages in appropriate circumstances; and (2) the district court in this case did not abuse its discretion when it ordered Defendant to pay restitution for wages that the complaining witness lost as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct. View "State v. DeMello" on Justia Law

This case involved dibromochloropropane, a powerful nematode worm killer, and the litigation was multi-jurisdictional. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment against Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendants on statute of limitations grounds. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed. At issue on certiorari was (1) whether the filing of a putative class action in another jurisdiction operated to toll the state of Hawaii’s statute of limitations, and (2) if so, at what point did such tolling end? The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment and remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings, holding (1) the filing of a putative class action in another jurisdiction does toll the statute of limitations in the state of Hawaii because such “cross-jurisdictional tolling” supports a purpose of class action litigations, which is to avoid a multiplicity of suits; (2) under the circumstances of this case, cross-jurisdictional tolling ended when the foreign jurisdiction issued a final judgment that unequivocally dismissed the putative class action; and (3) Plaintiffs’ complaint was timely filed within the applicable limitations period and, therefore, was not time-barred. View "Patrickson v. Dole Food Co." on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute between Plaintiff, Ka’upulehu Land LLC, and Defendants, heirs and assigns of Pahukula, et al., stemming from Plaintiff’s complaint to quiet title to certain property. Plaintiff, which obtained the property through paper title derived from a common grantor, claimed that neither it nor Defendants received valid title to the property because the common grantor had sold the property prior to his death. The circuit court entered summary judgment for Plaintiff, concluding that Plaintiff was entitled to the entire property by adverse possession. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the circuit court’s judgment, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the existence of a cotenancy. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the lower courts, holding (1) the evidence was not sufficient to establish that the common grantor was not vested with title to the property when he died, and therefore, title to the property descended in accordance with the law in effect at the time of the common grantor’s death to his heirs; and (2) Defendants and Plaintiff were cotenants because they both received their interests in the property through a series of conveyances stemming from the common grantor. View "Ka'upulehu Land LLC v. Heirs and Assigns of Pahukula " on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a coastal height setback requirement that limits development next to Waikiki’s shoreline. In 2010, Kyo-ya Hotels & Resorts LP submitted a land use permit to redevelop an existing hotel building with a twenty-six-story hotel and residential tower. The Director of the Department of Planning and Permitting granted partial approval of Kyo-ya’s variance application to allow the Project to encroach approximately seventy-four percent into the coastal height setback. Several entities (Petitioners) challenged the Director’s conclusion that Kyo-ya’s request for a variance from the coastal height Sstback met the requirements for issuance of a variance as set forth by the city charter. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) denied Petitioners’ appeal of the Director’s decision. The circuit court affirmed the ZBA order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Kyo-ya met none of the three requirements for issuance of a variance. View "Surfrider Found. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted in six counts, but only counts I and IV were at issue in this appeal. Two separate trials ended in mistrial on the relevant counts. After a second trial on counts I through IV, the circuit court again declared a mistrial and discharged the jury. The circuit court later concluded that it had erred by not accepting an apparent unanimous verdict of guilty on count II, reconvened the jury, and accepted the guilty verdict as to count II. The court subsequently granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss counts I, III, and IV. The court also granted Defendant’s motion to vacate count II based on juror misconduct and ordered a retrial on that count. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. Defendant and the State appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the ICA correctly concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing counts I, III, and IV under the factors set forth in State v. Moriwake; (2) the ICA did not err in concluding that retrial of count II was not barred by double jeopardy; and (3) the ICA did not err in declining to address whether the circuit court erred in recalling the jury. View "State v. Deguair" on Justia Law

A nine-year-old child (“Minor”) died from cardiac arrest caused by hypovolemic shock. Plaintiffs filed this action against the Queen’s Medical Center (“QMC”), Dr. Thinh T. Nguyen (“Defendant”), and The Emergency Group, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants failed to provide information required under the informed consent doctrine before treating Minor for vomiting and nausea with the medication Reglan. The circuit court granted judgment as a matter of law for Defendants on the informed consent claim. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated in part the ICA’s judgment on appeal as to Plaintiffs’ informed consent claims, holding (1) Plaintiffs presented sufficient expert medical evidence to advance their informed consent claim to the jury; and (2) the ICA erred in concluding that Plaintiffs waived the issue of Defendant’s failure to inform them of all statutorily mandated information. View "Ngo v. Queen's Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

This case arose from a dispute over the adequacy of concrete work Nordic PCL Construction, Inc. performed on a condominium construction project as a subcontractor to LPIHGC, LLC. The parties proceeded to arbitration. An arbitrator selected by the parties issued an arbitration award in favor of LPIHGC. LPIHGC moved to confirm, and Nordic moved to vacate, the arbitration award. The circuit court denied the motion to vacate and granted the motion to confirm. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the arbitration award on the grounds that the arbitrator failed to disclose various relationships with the law firms of LPIHGC’s attorneys. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment on appeal and the circuit court’s final judgment, thereby vacating the associated orders granting LPIHGC’s motion to confirm the arbitration award and denying Nordic’s motion to vacate the arbitration award, holding that because the factual and/or legal bases upon which the circuit court denied the motion to vacate were unascertainable, the Supreme Court was unable to appropriately review the circuit court’s ruling. Remanded for an evidentiary hearing and entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law on Nordic’s motion to vacate. View "In re Arbitration of Nordic PCL Constr., Inc. v. LIPHGC, LLC" on Justia Law

The case arose from a dispute over the adequacy of concrete work Nordic PCL Construction, Inc. performed on a condominium construction project as a subcontractor to LPIHGC, LLC. The subcontract contained a binding arbitration clause. The arbitrator entered a partial final award and final award (collectively, the arbitration award), ruling in favor of LPIHGC. LPIHGC filed a motion to confirm, and Nordic filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award. Neither party requested an evidentiary hearing to address disputed issues of material fact. The circuit court granted LPIHGC’s motion and denied Nordic’s motion and entered final judgment in favor of LPIHGC. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) reversed, concluding that the arbitrator’s failure to disclose various relationship with the law firms of LPIHGC’s attorneys established a reasonable impression of partiality requiring vacatur of the arbitration award. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment, holding that because the circuit court did not explain the basis of its rulings on the record or enter findings of fact or conclusions of law, the Court was unable to determine whether the circuit court erred in denying Nordic’s motion to vacate. Remanded to the circuit court for an evidentiary hearing and entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law on Nordic’s motion to vacate. View "Nordic PCL Constr., Inc. v. LIPHGC, LLC" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, the district court found Defendant guilty of harassment. Defendant attended his sentencing hearing without his lawyer. After a brief colloquy with Defendant, the district court found that Defendant had validly waived his right to counsel. The court then sentenced Defendant to the maximum five-day jail term allowed for a term of probation for the harassment offense. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) upheld Defendant’s sentence, concluding that Defendant waived his right to counsel. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing, holding that the record did not support a finding that Defendant’s waiver of counsel was knowingly and intelligently made. View "State v. Phua" on Justia Law