Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-88 (2026)

  Judicial review

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

     §386-88  Judicial review.  The decision or order of the appellate board shall be final and conclusive, except as provided in section 386-89, unless within thirty days after mailing of a certified copy of the decision or order, the director or any other party appeals to the intermediate appellate court, subject to chapter 602, by filing a written notice of appeal with the appellate board, or by electronically filing a notice of appeal in accordance with the Hawaii rules of appellate procedure.  A fee in the amount prescribed by section 607-5 for filing a notice of appeal from a circuit court shall be paid to the appellate board for filing the notice of appeal from the board, which together with the appellate court costs shall be deemed costs of the appellate court proceeding.  The appeal shall be on the record, and the court shall review the appellate board's decision on matters of law only.  No new evidence shall be introduced in the appellate court, except that if evidence is offered that is clearly newly discovered evidence and material to the just decision of the appeal, the court may admit the evidence. [L 1963, c 116, pt of §1; am L 1965, c 156, §1; Supp, §97-97; HRS §386-88; am L 1969, c 244, §2e; am L 1974, c 145, §4; am L 1979, c 111, §19; am L 2004, c 202, §44; am L 2006, c 94, §1; am L 2010, c 109, §1; am L 2013, c 14, §2]

 

Cross References

 

  Appeals, see chapter 91.

 

Rules of Court

 

  Appeal, see Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure.

 

Case Notes

 

  Constitutional.  24 H. 97 (1917).

  Appeal is upon both law and facts and is trial of cause de novo.  24 H. 731 (1919); 40 H. 660 (1955).

  This section and §386-73 supersede §91-14 and remove the circuit court from the appellate process with regard to proceedings brought under chapter 386.  53 H. 640, 500 P.2d 746 (1972).

  Appeals to supreme court from appeals board are governed by Administrative Procedure Act which sets out the "clearly erroneous" standard of review.  57 H. 296, 555 P.2d 855 (1976).

  Appeals are governed by chapter 91.  2 H. App. 219, 629 P.2d 125 (1981).

  Cited:  56 H. 544, 545 P.2d 687 (1976); 56 H. 552, 545 P.2d 692 (1976).

  Cited:  134 H. 99 (App.), 332 P.3d 701 (2014).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1970–2024 · leading case: Tauese v. State, Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations, 147 P.3d 785 (Haw. 2006).
Tauese v. State, Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations, 147 P.3d 785 (Haw. 2006). · cites it 6× “On October 15, 2004, Appellant filed his notice of appeal with this court pursuant to HRS § 386-88 (1993) 11 and Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rules 3 and 4.”
De Victoria v. H & K Contractors, 545 P.2d 692 (Haw. 1976). · cites it 12× “This is an appeal pursuant to HRS § 386-88 (Supp. 1974) by a claimant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as claimant) from an adverse decision and order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board, denying further medical benefits and compensation for an alleged…”
Lindinha v. Hilo Coast Processing Co., 86 P.3d 973 (Haw. 2004). · cites it 9× “We observe first, that a decision by the Director may be appealed to the LIRAB.”
Capua v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 184 P.3d 191 (Haw. 2008). · cites it 8× “Thereafter, Capua filed her notice of appeal with the ICA, pursuant to HRS § 386-88 (Supp.2007). [7] D. Appeal Before the ICA On direct appeal, Capua argued, inter alia, that HAR § 12-14-36 "[was] invalid as inconsistent with the Hawai`i [w]orkers' [c]ompensation [l]aw.”
Waltrip v. TS Enter., Inc., 398 P.3d 815 (Haw. 2016). · cites it 4× “Fund argued that the ICA lacked jurisdiction over Waltrip’s appeal of the July 2011 Decision and the Order Denying August Request because Waltrip’s appeal was one day late under HRS § 386-87(d) (1993) and HRS § 386-88 (Supp. 2010), as she filed her notice of appeal on September…”
Tamashiro v. Control Specialist, Inc., 34 P.3d 16 (Haw. 2001). · cites it 4× “[2] HRS § 386-88 (1993) instructs as follows: The decision or order of the appellate board shall be final and conclusive, except as provided in section 386-89, unless within thirty days after mailing of a certified copy of the decision or order, the director or any other party…”
Dependents of Akamine v. Hawaiian Packing & Crating Co., 495 P.2d 1164 (Haw. 1972). · cites it 6× “Akamine's dependents, the claimants-appellants, appealed the Board's decision by direct appeal to this court, pursuant to HRS § 386-88 (Supp. 1971). [1] The major issue in this case is whether the employer-appellee, Hawaiian *1166 Packing and Crating Company, and its insurance…”
Bocalbos v. Kapiolani Med. Ctr. for Women & Child., 997 P.2d 42 (Haw. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “Case law has determined that HRS § 386-88 supersedes HRS § 91-14 only with respect to the statement that the judicial review be instituted with the circuit court.”
Van Ness v. State, Dep't of Educ.., 319 P.3d 464 (Haw. 2014). · cites it 2× “HRS § 386-88 (Supp.2011) provides in relevant part: "The decision or order of the appellate board shall be final and conclusive, .”
Tate v. GTE Hawaiian Tel. Co., 881 P.2d 1246 (Haw. 1994). · cites it 2× “Appeals from decisions of the Board are made directly to this court, as provided in HRS § 386-88 (1985). 2 . Haw Tel annually sponsors a separate retirement banquet, which honors all of the previous year's retirees.”
Cadiz v. QSI, Inc., 468 P.3d 110 (Haw. 2020). · cites it 2× “5; HRS § 386-88. Because any appeal from a determination of the director receives a full hearing de novo from the LIRAB, this court reviews only the decisions of the LIRAB and not the decisions of the director.”
Dependents of Pacheco v. Orchids of Hawaii, 502 P.2d 1399 (Haw. 1972). · cites it 4× “The claim was denied by the Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations.”
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.