Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 386
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-96 (2026)

  Reports of physicians, surgeons, and hospitals

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

     §386-96  Reports of physicians, surgeons, and hospitals.  (a)  Any physician, surgeon, or hospital that has given any treatment or rendered any service to an injured employee shall make a report of the injury and treatment on forms prescribed by and to be obtained from the department as follows:

     (1)  Within seven days after the date of first attendance or service rendered, an initial report shall be made to the department and to the employer of the injured employee in the manner prescribed by the department;

     (2)  Interim reports to the same parties and in the same manner as prescribed in paragraph (1) shall be made at appropriate intervals to verify the claimant's current diagnosis and prognosis, that the information as to the nature of the examinations and treatments performed is complete, including the dates of those treatments and the results obtained within the current reporting period, the execution of all tests performed within the current reporting period and the results of the tests, whether the injured employee is improving, worsening, or if "medical stabilization" has been reached, the dates of disability, any work restrictions, and the return to work date.  When an injured employee is returned to full-time, regular, light, part-time, or restricted work, the attending physician shall submit a report to the employer within seven calendar days indicating the date of release to work or medical stabilization; and

     (3)  A final report to the same parties and in the same manner as prescribed in paragraph (1) shall be made within seven days after termination of treatment.

No physician, surgeon, or hospital that has given any treatment or rendered any service to an injured employee shall be required to provide any additional reports not otherwise mandated by this section.

     (b)  No claim under this chapter for medical treatment, surgical treatment, or hospital services and supplies, shall be valid and enforceable unless the reports are made as provided in this section, except that the director may excuse the failure to make the report within the prescribed period or a nonsubmission of the report when the director finds it in the best interest of justice to do so.  If the director does not excuse the submission of:

     (1)  An initial or interim report within the time prescribed in subsection (a)(1) and (2); or

     (2)  A final report that is thirty days late or a nonsubmission,

the delinquent physician shall be fined not more than $500.

     (c)  The director shall furnish to the injured employee a copy of the final report of the attending physician or surgeon or, if more than one physician or surgeon should treat or examine the employee, a copy of the final report of each physician or surgeon.

     (d)  Within fifteen days after being requested to do so by the injured employee or the employee's duly authorized representative, the employer shall furnish the employee or the employee's duly authorized representative with copies of all medical reports relating to the employee's injury that are in the possession of the employer.  The copies shall be furnished at the expense of the employer.  The employer shall allow the employee or the employee's duly authorized representative to inspect and copy transcripts of depositions of medical witnesses, relating to the employee's injury, in the possession of the employer.  Any employer who fails to furnish medical reports or to allow inspection and copying of transcripts of depositions of medical witnesses, as required by this subsection, shall be fined in an amount not to exceed $5,000.

     (e)  Deposit of the records required by subsection (a)(1) in the United States mail or by electronic means as approved by the director, addressed to the director and to the employer, within the time limit specified, shall be deemed in compliance with the requirements of this section. [L 1963, c 116, pt of §1; Supp, §97-111; am L 1966, c 7, §3; HRS §386-96; am L 1969, c 31, §1; am L 1972, c 13, §1 and c 60, §1; am L 1973, c 12, §1; gen ch 1985; am L 1988, c 37, §4; am L 1995, c 234, §15; am L Sp 2005, c 11, §10; am L 2016, c 187, §3]

 

Case Notes

 

  Claimant's temporary total disability benefits may not be denied based on deficiencies in a physician's certifications of disability.  136 H. 448, 363 P.3d 296 (2015).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1974–2020 · leading case: Panoke v. Reef Dev. of Hawaii, Inc., 363 P.3d 296 (Haw. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Panoke v. Reef Dev. of Hawaii, Inc., 363 P.3d 296 (Haw. 2015). · cites it 36× “Reef and Seabright asserted that the Work Star reports were not sufficient to certify Panoke as disabled because they did not indicate the dates when his disability started, and when he would be able to return to work, as required by HRS § 386-96. Reef and Seabright also argued…”
Fukuda v. Peerless Roofing Co., 523 P.2d 832 (Haw. 1974). · cites it 4× “There was then no statutory requirement that a physician submit a report to either the claimant’s former employer or to the director of labor and industrial relations.”
Skahan v. Stutts Constr. Co.. Consol. with CAAP-16-0000663. (Haw. 2020). · cites it 6× “While HRS § 386-96 (Supp. 2005)8 required physicians to include the dates of disability in their reports, it did not provide that claimants’ benefits must be denied due to a physician’s non-compliance.”
Skahan v. Stutts Constr. Co.. (Haw. 2020). · cites it 6× “While HRS § 386-96 (Supp. 2005)8 required physicians to include the dates of disability in their reports, it did not provide that claimants’ benefits must be denied due to a physician’s non-compliance.”
Skahan v. Stutts Constr. Co., Inc. (Haw. 2020). · cites it 6× “While HRS § 386-96 (Supp. 2005)8 required physicians to include the dates of disability in their reports, it did not provide that claimants’ benefits must be denied due to a physician’s non-compliance.”
Zhang v. State (Haw. 2016). · cites it 5× “The ICA affirmed the LIRAB’s denial of temporary total disability after May 5, 2004 for lack of disability certification, ruling that the three medical reports dated after May 5, 2004 were insufficient under HRS 386-96, which mandates (. . .continued) as her rights and benefits…”
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.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-96(2) — 1 case
Panoke v. Reef Dev. of Hawaii, Inc., 363 P.3d 296 (Haw. 2015). “Reef and Seabright asserted that the Work Star reports were not sufficient to certify Panoke as disabled because they did not indicate the dates when his disability started, and when he would be able to return to work, as required by HRS § 386-96. Reef and Seabright also argued…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-96(a)(2) — 5 cases
Panoke v. Reef Dev. of Hawaii, Inc., 363 P.3d 296 (Haw. 2015). “Reef and Seabright asserted that the Work Star reports were not sufficient to certify Panoke as disabled because they did not indicate the dates when his disability started, and when he would be able to return to work, as required by HRS § 386-96. Reef and Seabright also argued…”
Zhang v. State (Haw. 2016). “The ICA affirmed the LIRAB’s denial of temporary total disability after May 5, 2004 for lack of disability certification, ruling that the three medical reports dated after May 5, 2004 were insufficient under HRS 386-96, which mandates (. . .continued) as her rights and benefits…”
Skahan v. Stutts Constr. Co.. Consol. with CAAP-16-0000663. (Haw. 2020). “While HRS § 386-96 (Supp. 2005)8 required physicians to include the dates of disability in their reports, it did not provide that claimants’ benefits must be denied due to a physician’s non-compliance.”
Skahan v. Stutts Constr. Co.. (Haw. 2020). “While HRS § 386-96 (Supp. 2005)8 required physicians to include the dates of disability in their reports, it did not provide that claimants’ benefits must be denied due to a physician’s non-compliance.”
Skahan v. Stutts Constr. Co., Inc. (Haw. 2020). “While HRS § 386-96 (Supp. 2005)8 required physicians to include the dates of disability in their reports, it did not provide that claimants’ benefits must be denied due to a physician’s non-compliance.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-96(b) — 4 cases
Panoke v. Reef Dev. of Hawaii, Inc., 363 P.3d 296 (Haw. 2015). “Reef and Seabright asserted that the Work Star reports were not sufficient to certify Panoke as disabled because they did not indicate the dates when his disability started, and when he would be able to return to work, as required by HRS § 386-96. Reef and Seabright also argued…”
Skahan v. Stutts Constr. Co.. Consol. with CAAP-16-0000663. (Haw. 2020). “While HRS § 386-96 (Supp. 2005)8 required physicians to include the dates of disability in their reports, it did not provide that claimants’ benefits must be denied due to a physician’s non-compliance.”
Skahan v. Stutts Constr. Co.. (Haw. 2020). “While HRS § 386-96 (Supp. 2005)8 required physicians to include the dates of disability in their reports, it did not provide that claimants’ benefits must be denied due to a physician’s non-compliance.”
Skahan v. Stutts Constr. Co., Inc. (Haw. 2020). “While HRS § 386-96 (Supp. 2005)8 required physicians to include the dates of disability in their reports, it did not provide that claimants’ benefits must be denied due to a physician’s non-compliance.”
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.