Battad v. Hoshino ( 2018 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-18-0000155
18-MAY-2018
01:39 PM
SCPW-18-0000155
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
_________________________________________________________________
ANACLETO R. BATTAD, III, Petitioner,
vs.
LEONARD HOSHIJO, in his official capacity as the DIRECTOR OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CASE NO. 41610047)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Anacleto R. Battad’s
petition for writ of mandamus, filed on March 14, 2018, the
documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and
the record, it appears that petitioner is not entitled to the
requested extraordinary writ at this juncture. While the parties
do not disagree that petitioner is entitled to medical treatment,
it appears that neither petitioner, nor employer, nor Centre for
Neuro Skills have formally sought a ruling from the respondent in
the workers’ compensation proceeding regarding the fee issue and
the steps to be taken regarding the process by which the
reasonable daily rate for treatment is to be established.
Without a definitive ruling, this court is unable to adequately
consider whether a writ of mandamus is warranted to provide the
relief that is being sought. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200,
204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an
extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner
demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack
of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or
obtain the requested action); Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawai#i
109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996) (in matters involving a
public official, mandamus relief is available to compel an
official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only
if the individual’s claim is clear and certain, the official’s
duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from
doubt, and no other remedy is available); Salling v. Moon, 76
Hawai#i 273, 274 n.3, 874 P.2d 1098, 1099 n.3 (1994) (a duty is
ministerial “where the law prescribes and defines the duty to be
performed with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing
to the exercise of discretion and judgment”). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 18, 2018.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
2