§386-86 Proceedings upon claim; hearings.
(a) If a claim for compensation is made, the director shall make such further
investigation as deemed necessary and render a decision within sixty days after
the conclusion of the hearing awarding or denying compensation, stating the
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The director may extend the due date
for decisions for good cause provided all parties agree. The decision shall be
filed with the record of the proceedings and a copy of the decision shall be
sent immediately to each party.
(b) The hearing shall be informal and shall
afford the parties a full and fair opportunity to present the facts and
evidence to be considered. Hearings under this section shall not be subject to
chapter 91. No stenographic or tape recording shall be allowed.
(c) The order of presentation shall not alter
the burden of proof, including the burden of producing evidence and the burden
of persuasion. The party or parties who bear these burdens shall be determined
by law consistent with the purposes of this section.
(d) Should the injured employee or injured
employee's representative, or the employer or employer's representative fail to
appear at the hearing, the director may issue a decision based on the
information on file. The decision shall be final unless appealed pursuant to
section 386-87. In all other circumstances, a decision shall not be rendered
by the director without a hearing, which may not be waived by the parties.
(e) For the purpose of obtaining any matter,
not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending
action, the director, upon application and for good cause shown, may order the
taking of relevant testimony by deposition, upon oral examination, or written
interrogatories, or by other means of discovery in the manner and effect
prescribed by the Hawaii rules of civil procedure; provided that when the
claimant's deposition is taken, the employer shall pay for the cost to the claimant
of attending the deposition, any costs associated with having the deposition
transcribed and copied, and any and all reasonable attorney's fees and costs
incurred by the claimant with respect to the deposition.
(f) Subpoenas requiring the attendance of
witnesses at a hearing before a hearings officer or for the taking of a
deposition or the production of documentary evidence from any place within the
State at any designated place of hearing may be issued by the director or a
duly authorized representative. The employer shall serve a claimant with a
copy of a medical record subpoena unless the employer has previously obtained
the claimant's authorization to examine the claimant's medical records. Should
the claimant subpoena medical records, the employer shall be served a copy.
The party subpoenaing the records shall provide these records within fifteen
calendar days of their receipt to the employer, claimant, and the special
compensation fund if a joinder has been filed, or their representatives. These
records shall be submitted by the party requesting the subpoena to the director
within seven calendar days of the date of the notice of hearing or upon request
by the director. A party who desires to enforce the director's subpoena shall
seek enforcement from a court of competent jurisdiction. [L 1963, c 116, pt of
§1; Supp, §97-95; HRS §386-86; am L 1985, c 296, §8; am L Sp 2005, c 11, §8]
Law Journals and Reviews
One-Sided Bargain? Assessing the Fairness of Hawai‘i's
Workers' Compensation Law. 31 UH L. Rev. 553 (2009).
Case Notes
Where no lawful claim was filed with the director, director
lacked the statutory authority either to award or to deny benefits to injured
employee. 89 H. 411, 974 P.2d 51 (1999).
Notes of Decisions
Potter v. Hawaii Newspaper Agency, 974 P.2d 51 (Haw. 1999).
· cites it 3× “HRS § 386-86 (1993) provides in relevant part that “[i]f a claim for compen *423 sation is made, the director shall make such further investigation as deemed necessary and render a decision within sixty days after the conclusion of the hearing awarding, or denying compensation.”
Cadiz v. QSI, Inc., 468 P.3d 110 (Haw. 2020).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 386-86(a)-(b). The director conducts a hearing on the claim and issues findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
Bocalbos v. Kapiolani Med. Ctr. for Women & Child., 974 P.2d 1026 (Haw. 1999).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 386-86 (1993). The decision of the director is final unless it is appealed to the LIRAB, which may affirm, reverse, or modify the director’s decision or remand the *439 case to the director for further proceedings and action.”
In re Attorney's Fees to McLaren v. Paradise Inn Hawaii, Inc., 321 P.3d 671 (Haw. 2014).
· cites it 2× “” McLaren further argued that because a claimant’s attorney’s fees and costs approved by the DCD or the LIRAB are subtracted from compensation otherwise payable to the claimant, and because the approved amount is valuable income to the claimant’s attorney, an HRS § 386-86…”
Yoshii v. State, Univ. of Hawaii., 375 P.3d 216 (Haw. 2016).
· cites it 2× “” HRS § 386-86 provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]n any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter it shall be presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary: (1) That the claim is for a covered work injury.”
Cui v. State, 487 P.3d 324 (Haw. 2021).
· cites it 14× “2d 51, 63 (1999), this court stated: “The plain language of [HRS § 386-86] (continued . . .) 10 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** the Director, the Director lacks the statutory authority to award or deny benefits to an injured employee.”
Ihara v. State. (Haw. 2017).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 386-86(a)-(b)(1993 & Supp. 2014). The director conducts an informal hearing on the claim and issues findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
Weis v. Pali Momi Med. Ctr. (Haw. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 386-86 (2015), concerning proceedings and hearings, has no restriction on the Director's authority to consider or apply equitable doctrines such as estoppel.”
Cooper v. State of Hawaii Dep't of Taxation (D. Haw. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Defendant Nishimoto’s letter to Plaintiff informed him that the Department of Human Resources Development would not approve his workers’ compensation benefits beginning on April 11, 2017, because he failed to provide a proper medical examination slip beyond that date.”
Suzuki v. Kawamura (Haw. 2011).
· cites it 2× “and Circuit Judge To#oto#o, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by petitioner Lola Suzuki and the papers in support, it appears that: (1) HRS § 386-86(e) (Supp. 2009) expressly authorizes a deposition, upon oral…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-86(a) — 3 cases
Cadiz v. QSI, Inc., 468 P.3d 110 (Haw. 2020).
“HRS § 386-86(a)-(b). The director conducts a hearing on the claim and issues findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
Cui v. State, 487 P.3d 324 (Haw. 2021).
“2d 51, 63 (1999), this court stated: “The plain language of [HRS § 386-86] (continued . . .) 10 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** the Director, the Director lacks the statutory authority to award or deny benefits to an injured employee.”
Ihara v. State. (Haw. 2017).
“HRS § 386-86(a)-(b)(1993 & Supp. 2014). The director conducts an informal hearing on the claim and issues findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-86(e) — 1 case
Suzuki v. Kawamura (Haw. 2011).
“and Circuit Judge To#oto#o, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by petitioner Lola Suzuki and the papers in support, it appears that: (1) HRS § 386-86(e) (Supp. 2009) expressly authorizes a deposition, upon oral…”
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.