Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 383-33 (2026)

  Determinations, in general

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

     §383-33  Determinations, in general.  (a)  A determination upon a claim filed pursuant to section 383-32 shall be made promptly by a representative of the department of labor and industrial relations authorized to make determinations upon claims and shall include a statement as to whether and in what amount the individual is entitled to benefits for the week with respect to which the determination is made and, in the event of a denial, shall state the reasons therefor.  A determination with respect to the first week of a benefit year shall also include a statement as to whether the individual has been paid the wages required under section 383-29(a)(5) and, if so, the first day of the benefit year, the individual's weekly benefit amount, and the maximum total amount of benefits payable to the individual with respect to such benefit year.

     (b)  If any employer fails to furnish the information necessary to determine whether and in what amount the individual is entitled to benefits in the manner and within the time specified by this chapter or regulations of the department, the department shall make a determination based upon such information as is available.  Prior to October 1, 2013, in the absence of fraud, any redetermination made on the basis of information furnished by the employer after the prescribed period shall be effective only as to benefits paid after the week in which the information was received.  In the absence of a showing by the employer satisfying the department that the employer could not reasonably comply with the department's requirement, any benefits overpaid prior to the effective date of the redetermination as a result of the employer's failure to furnish the information as required shall be charged entirely against the account of the noncomplying employer; provided that the overpaid benefits shall not, in any event, be recoverable from the individual.  Any redetermination issued on or after October 1, 2013, on the basis of information furnished by the employer or the agent of the employer after the prescribed period shall be effective upon the date of the redetermination.  The entire amount of benefits overpaid due to the employer's or agent of the employer's failure to respond timely or adequately to the agency's request for information as required shall be charged against the account of the noncomplying employer. [L 1939, c 219, §6(c); am L 1941, c 304, §1, pt of subs 18; RL 1945, §4234; am L 1955, c 51, §1(4); RL 1955, §93-32; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §27; HRS §383-33; am L 1968, c 4, §2; am L 1971, c 187, §5; gen ch 1985; am L 2013, c 3, §2]

 

Case Notes

 

  Applies where employer fails to submit a wage and separation report, not where employer submits erroneous information of claimant's earnings.  68 H. 349, 714 P.2d 520 (1986).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1980–2004 · leading case: Univ. of Hawai'i v. Befitel, 100 P.3d 55 (Haw. 2004).
Univ. of Hawai'i v. Befitel, 100 P.3d 55 (Haw. 2004). · cites it 4× “First, we observe that a determination “by a representative of the department of labor and industrial relations[,]” HRS § 383-33 (1993), 6 may be appealed to the DLIR in the county in which the claimant resides by “[t]he claimant or any other party entitled to notice of a…”
Ainoa v. Unemployment Comp. Appeals Div., 614 P.2d 380 (Haw. 1980). · cites it 2× “3 HRS § 383-33. 4 HRS § 383-29 Eligibility for benefits, (a) An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the department of labor and industrial relations finds that: (3) Availability.”
Agsalud v. Cent. Transp. Co., 714 P.2d 520 (Haw. 1986). · cites it 12× “” Viewing the issue before him as one involving the application of HRS § 383-33, the referee reversed the department and ruled the “employer [was] not liable for the overpayment.”
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.