Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-92 (2026)

  Default in payments of compensation, penalty

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

     §386-92  Default in payments of compensation, penalty.  If any compensation payable under the terms of a final decision or judgment is not paid by a self-insured employer or an insurance carrier within thirty-one days after it becomes due, as provided by the final decision or judgment, or if any temporary total disability benefits are not paid by the employer or carrier within ten days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, after the employer or carrier has been notified of the disability, and where the right to benefits are not controverted in the employer's initial report of industrial injury or where temporary total disability benefits are terminated in violation of section 386-31, there shall be added to the unpaid compensation an amount equal to twenty per cent thereof payable at the same time as, but in addition to, the compensation, unless the nonpayment is excused by the director after a showing by the employer or insurance carrier that the payment of the compensation could not be made on the date prescribed therefor owing to the conditions over which the employer or carrier had no control. [L 1963, c 116, pt of §1; Supp, §97-101; HRS §386-92; am L 1971, c 159, §1; am L 1979, c 66, §4; gen ch 1985; am L 1995, c 234, §14]

 

Case Notes

 

  Administrative penalties authorized by this section and §386-31(b) not intended to provide an injured worker's exclusive remedy for injuries resulting from an insurer's tortious delay or termination of benefits.  83 H. 457, 927 P.2d 858 (1996).

  Employer was not subject to penalties for failing to make immediate payments of temporary total disability even though the claim was not controverted in the employer's initial injury report, given that:  (1) employer was unable to controvert claimant's shoulder injury in the initial injury report because claimant had not complained of any shoulder injury, but employer did controvert the shoulder injuries as soon as claimant made those claims; and (2) holding that employer had not controverted claimant's shoulder injury for purposes of this section merely because employer had not done so in the initial injury report would have the effect of allowing employees to subsequently add any injuries to their claims and prevent their employers from controverting the additional injuries without paying a penalty.  136 H. 448, 363 P.3d 296 (2015).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Panoke v. Reef Dev. of Hawaii, Inc., 363 P.3d 296 (Haw. 2015).
Panoke v. Reef Dev. of Hawaii, Inc., 363 P.3d 296 (Haw. 2015). · cites it 20× “Finally, Panoke argued that Reef and Seabright should have been required to pay a twenty percent penalty for late payments of TTD under HRS § 386-92. On June 14, 2011, the LIRAB issued its decision.”
Hough v. Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., 927 P.2d 858 (Haw. 1996). · cites it 8× “97 as a penalty, representing 10% of the unpaid compensation due claimant from August 10, 1987 through February 3, 1988, pursuant to HRS § 386-92; 7 (5) Ramco/Pacific reimburse Royal the amount of $9,063.”
Costa v. Cnty. of Hawai'i. ICA s.d.o., filed 02/23/2024 [ada], 154 Haw. 40. ICA Order of Corr., filed 02/27/2024 [ada]. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/17/2024. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 07/10/2024 [ada]. (Haw. 2025). · cites it 69× “Based on the plain reading of HRS § 386-92, the statutory scheme of Hawaiʻi workers’ compensation laws, and its legislative history, we hold that a penalty may be properly imposed where an employer or its carrier fails to make timely TTD benefit payments where liability is not…”
Costa, JR. v. Cnty. of Hawaii, 154 Haw. 40 (Haw. App. 2024). · cites it 30× “Costa raises multiple points of error, arguing that LIRAB erred in: (1) its interpretation and application of HRS § 386-92; (2) requiring Costa prove the imposition of the HRS § 386-92 administrative penalty by clear and convincing evidence; (3) determining that the HRS § 386-92…”
Seghorn v. State, 154 Haw. 260 (Haw. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “" HRS § 386-92 (2015). Here, the Board found Employer was liable for late payment penalties for the following periods: • November 26, 2015 through December 15, 2015 • January 15, 2016 through February 17, 2016 • March 2, 2016 through March 6, 2016 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S…”
Scarlett v. Macy's West Stores, Inc., 153 Haw. 261 (Haw. App. 2023). “The Director: (1) awarded Scarlett TTD benefits beginning January 7, 2018, "and terminating at such time as is determined by the Director that such disability has ended"; (2) assessed a penalty against Macy's under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 386-92 ("Default in payments of…”
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.