Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 671
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 671-12 (2026)

  Review by panel required; notice; presentation of inquiry; request for a more definite statement of the inquiry

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

     §671-12  Review by panel required; notice; presentation of inquiry; request for a more definite statement of the inquiry.  (a)  Any person or the person's representative having concerns regarding the existence of a medical tort shall submit an inquiry to the medical inquiry and conciliation panel before a suit based on the circumstances of the inquiry may be commenced in any court of this State.  Inquiries shall be submitted to the medical inquiry and conciliation panel in writing and shall include the facts upon which the inquiry is based and the names of all parties against whom the inquiry is or may be made who are then known to the person or the person's representative.

     (b)  Within five business days after receipt of an inquiry the panel shall give notice of the inquiry and the statement of the inquiry, by certified mail, to all health care providers and others who are or may be parties to the inquiry and shall furnish copies of written inquiries to those persons.  The notice shall set forth a date, not more than twenty days after the mailing of the notice, within which any health care provider against whom an inquiry is made shall file a written response and a date and time, not less than five days following the last date for filing a response, for a proceeding upon the inquiry by the panel and the parties.  The notice shall describe the nature and purpose of the panel's proceedings and shall designate the place of the meeting.  The times originally set forth in the notice may be enlarged by the chairperson, on due notice to all parties, for good cause.

     (c)  If the statement of the inquiry in the notice is so vague or ambiguous that any party receiving notice of the inquiry cannot reasonably be required to frame a written response, the party may submit a written request to the director of commerce and consumer affairs for a more definite statement before filing the written response.  Copies of the request shall be provided to the panel and all affected parties.  The request, which shall be ex parte and stay the proceedings of the panel until notice of the director's decision is given to the panel and all parties, shall specify the defects complained of and the details desired.  The director may deny, grant, or modify the request at the director's own discretion, without the necessity of a hearing, although the director may reach a decision after consulting with the panel or any party or parties.  The director shall provide notice of the decision to the panel and all affected parties.  If the request is granted and any party so directed fails to provide a more definite statement of the inquiry within five days after notice of the decision, the panel may make an order as it deems just.  This subsection shall not be used as a tactic to delay the proceedings. [L 1976, c 219, pt of §2; gen ch 1985; am L 1989, c 245, §1; am L 1993, c 96, §1; am L 2012, c 296, pt of §4]

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  Tort and Insurance "Reform" in a Common Law Court.  14 UH L. Rev. 55 (1992).

 

Case Notes

 

  Medical claim conciliation panel requirement is procedural rather than substantive, and does not apply to cases filed in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.  29 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (1998).

  Claim was allowed to be heard because there was substantial compliance with procedural requirements.  69 H. 305, 741 P.2d 1280 (1987).

  Where certain counts of plaintiff's complaint alleged errors or omissions in professional practice by a health care provider, thus falling under the definition of "medical tort" under §671-1(2), court properly ruled plaintiff could not proceed with those counts of suit without first submitting them to medical claim conciliation panel as required by §671-16 and this section.  89 H. 188, 970 P.2d 496 (1998).

  Where plaintiff chose to sidestep requirements of §671-16 and this section by filing suit before seeking resolution of claims by a medical claim conciliation panel as required under these statutes, court properly dismissed complaint.  89 H. 188, 970 P.2d 496 (1998).

  Where medical claim conciliation panel decision was filed after commencement of plaintiffs' suit in trial court, plaintiffs failed to comply with the requirements of this section; thus, trial court did not err in concluding it had no subject matter jurisdiction.  90 H. 425, 978 P.2d 863 (1999).

  Subsection (a) requires only that a claimant set forth facts upon which the claim is based and include the names of all parties against whom the claim is or may be made who are then known to the claimant; nowhere in this section does it require plaintiffs to name all known negligent health care providers; having filed the requisite medical claim conciliation panel claim, participated in the required hearing, and rejected the panel's finding of no actionable negligence, plaintiffs satisfied this chapter's statutory prerequisites for filing suit in circuit court.  111 H. 74, 137 P.3d 980 (2006).

  Where defendants city, city department of health, and city director of health fit within the definition of "health care facility" under §323D-2 and "health care provider" under §671-1, and as to them, each of the eight counts alleged a "medical tort", plaintiff was required to submit the eight counts against them to the medical claim conciliation panel pursuant to this section as a precondition to filing suit.  93 H. 490 (App.), 6 P.3d 362 (2000).

  Circuit court properly dismissed plaintiff's claims for lack of jurisdiction where, although plaintiff was not the patient in the case, plaintiff's allegations arose directly from an alleged medical tort involving plaintiff's son, a patient, and subsection (a) states that "any person" must submit a statement of the claim to the medical claim conciliation panel before a suit based on that claim may be commenced in any state court.  121 H. 235 (App.), 216 P.3d 1258 (2009).

  Plaintiff's claims of neglect, abuse, and failure to provide a safe home against care home defendants did not constitute "medical torts" within the meaning of §671-1; thus, plaintiff was not required to submit plaintiff's claims to a medical claim conciliation panel (MCCP) pursuant to this section and §671-16 as a condition for plaintiff to file suit against defendants, and the circuit court erred in dismissing plaintiff's suit based on plaintiff's failure to submit plaintiff's claims to a MCCP.  128 H. 405 (App.), 289 P.3d 1041 (2012).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2023 · leading case: Garcia v. Kaiser Found. Hospitals, 978 P.2d 863 (Haw. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Garcia v. Kaiser Found. Hospitals, 978 P.2d 863 (Haw. 1999). · cites it 32× “Davenport and HMG because those claims were medical torts that needed to be submitted to the Medical Claims Conciliation Panel (MCCP) under HRS § 671-12 (1993) prior to the filing of the complaint.”
Tobosa v. Owens, 741 P.2d 1280 (Haw. 1987). · cites it 20× “” HRS § 671-12. 3 Furthermore, the plaintiffs *308 complaint cannot “specify the amount of damages [sought] but shall contain a prayer for general relief.”
Yamane v. Pohlson, 137 P.3d 980 (Haw. 2006). · cites it 10× “The MCCP Proceedings in the Instant Case On August 7, 2000, the plaintiffs filed a medical tort claim before the MCCP, pursuant to HRS § 671-12, against twelve respondents as indicated in the table below: Respondent Description Dr.”
Dubin v. Wakuzawa, 970 P.2d 496 (Haw. 1999). · cites it 15× “za-wa’s disclosure was permissible pursuant to the provisions of Hawai'i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 504(d)(2) (1993), 2 (3) Dubin’s *191 complaint alleged medical torts as defined in HRS § 671-1(2) (1993), 3 and, therefore, he was precluded from bringing suit until his claims…”
Est. of Frey v. Mastroianni., 463 P.3d 1197 (Haw. 2020). · cites it 7× “Whether the legislature’s requirement, in the MCCP/MICP statute ( Haw. Rev. Stat. §671-12 ) that “the Claimant .”
Hawaii Gov't Employees Ass'n, AFSCME Local 152 v. Lingle, 239 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2010). · cites it 4× “HRS § 671-12(a) (1993) required in part that "any person or the person’s representative claiming that a medical tort has been committed shall submit a statement of the claim to the medical claim conciliation panel before a suit based on the claim may be commenced in any court of…”
Hum v. Dericks, 162 F.R.D. 628 (D. Haw. 1995). · cites it 6× “At the hearing, the court ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of class compliance with the MCCP procedure of HRS § 671-12(a). After hearing oral argument and reviewing the supporting, opposing and supplemental memoranda, the court DENIES Plaintiffs motion and GRANTS…”
Doe v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 6 P.3d 362 (Haw. App. 2000). · cites it 11× ““[T]he legislature has declared the submission of the claim to a conciliation panel and the rejection of the panel’s decision by a party to the panel hearing are prerequisites to a suit for damages premised on alleged malpractice, see HRS §§ 671-12 and 671-16.” Tobosa v. Owens,…”
Lee v. Hawaii Pac. Health, 216 P.3d 1258 (Haw. App. 2009). · cites it 7× “HRS § 671-12(a) (1993) states in relevant part that “any person or the person’s representative claiming that a medical tort has been committed shall submit a statement of the claim to the [MCCP] before a suit based on the claim may be commenced in any court of this State.”…”
Ralston v. Yim. ICA Opinion, filed 05/31/2012., 292 P.3d 1276 (Haw. 2013). · cites it 2× “Yim argued that he was a "health care provider" within the meaning of HRS § 671-1, and as such, Ralston was required to initially submit the claim against him to the Medical Claims Conciliation Panel, pursuant to HRS § 671-12. Ralston expressly abandons this theory on appeal.”
Off. of Hawaiian Affairs v. State, 133 P.3d 767 (Haw. 2006). · cites it 2× “2d 863, 879 (1999) (holding that “the circuit court did not err in concluding that it had no subject matter jurisdiction as a result of Plaintiffs failure to comply with the requirements of HRS § 671-12,” which mandated that such claims be first filed with the medical claim…”
Gov't Employees Ass'n v. Lingle, 239 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2010). · cites it 4× “HRS § 671-12(a) (1993) required in part that "any person or the person's representative claiming that a medical tort has been committed shall submit a statement of the claim to the medical claim conciliation panel before a suit based on the claim may be commenced in any court of…”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 671-12(a) — 12 cases
Hawaii Gov't Employees Ass'n, AFSCME Local 152 v. Lingle, 239 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2010). “HRS § 671-12(a) (1993) required in part that "any person or the person’s representative claiming that a medical tort has been committed shall submit a statement of the claim to the medical claim conciliation panel before a suit based on the claim may be commenced in any court of…”
Hum v. Dericks, 162 F.R.D. 628 (D. Haw. 1995). “At the hearing, the court ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of class compliance with the MCCP procedure of HRS § 671-12(a). After hearing oral argument and reviewing the supporting, opposing and supplemental memoranda, the court DENIES Plaintiffs motion and GRANTS…”
Lee v. Hawaii Pac. Health, 216 P.3d 1258 (Haw. App. 2009). “HRS § 671-12(a) (1993) states in relevant part that “any person or the person’s representative claiming that a medical tort has been committed shall submit a statement of the claim to the [MCCP] before a suit based on the claim may be commenced in any court of this State.”…”
Est. of Frey v. Mastroianni., 463 P.3d 1197 (Haw. 2020). “Whether the legislature’s requirement, in the MCCP/MICP statute ( Haw. Rev. Stat. §671-12 ) that “the Claimant .”
Gov't Employees Ass'n v. Lingle, 239 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2010). “HRS § 671-12(a) (1993) required in part that "any person or the person's representative claiming that a medical tort has been committed shall submit a statement of the claim to the medical claim conciliation panel before a suit based on the claim may be commenced in any court of…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 671-12(c) — 2 cases
Yamane v. Pohlson, 137 P.3d 980 (Haw. 2006). “The MCCP Proceedings in the Instant Case On August 7, 2000, the plaintiffs filed a medical tort claim before the MCCP, pursuant to HRS § 671-12, against twelve respondents as indicated in the table below: Respondent Description Dr.”
Salas v. EMP Med. Grp., Ltd., 524 P.3d 376 (Haw. App. 2023).
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.