Suzuki v. American Healthways, Inc. ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •   NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    Electronically Filed
    Intermediate Court of Appeals
    CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    03-NOV-2022
    09:41 AM
    Dkt. 154 ODSLJ
    NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
    OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
    LOLA L. SUZUKI, Claimant-Appellant-Appellant, v.
    AMERICAN HEALTHWAYS, INC., Employer-Appellee-Appellee, and
    ST. PAUL TRAVELERS, Insurance Carrier-Appellee-Appellee, and
    LORNE K. DIRENFELD, M.D.; GARY N. KUNIHIRO, ESQ.; and
    SHAWN L.M. BENTON, ESQ., Appellees-Appellees
    APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEAL BOARD
    (CASE NOS. AB 2007-497(S) AND AB 2007-498(S);
    DCD NOS. 2-06-14727 AND 2-07-04617)
    ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Chan, JJ.)
    Upon review of the record, it appears we lack appellate
    jurisdiction over self-represented Claimant-Appellant-Appellant
    Lola Suzuki's (Suzuki) appeal from the Labor and Industrial
    Relations Appeals Board's (LIRAB) December 28, 2021 "Order
    Granting Employer's Second Amended Motion to Compel Attendance at
    Medical Examination; and Denying Claimant's Motion for Partial
    Summary Judgment" (Order) entered in consolidated LIRAB Case Nos.
    AB 2007-497 and AB 2007-498.
    Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 386-88 (2015) and 91-
    14(a) (2012) authorize an aggrieved party to appeal a final
    decision and order by the LIRAB to the this court as follows:
    The appeal of a decision or order of the LIRAB
    is governed by HRS § 91-14(a), the statute authorizing
    appeals in administrative agency cases. HRS § 91-
    14(a) authorizes judicial review of a final decision
    and order in a contested case or a preliminary ruling
    of the nature that deferral of review pending entry of
    a subsequent final decision would deprive appellant of
    adequate relief. For purposes of HRS § 91-14(a), we
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    have defined "final order" to mean an order ending the
    proceedings, leaving nothing further to be
    accomplished. . . . Consequently, an order is not
    final if the rights of a party involved remain
    undetermined or if the matter is retained for further
    action.
    Bocalbos v. Kapiolani Med. Ctr. for Women & Children, 89 Hawai i
    436, 439, 
    974 P.2d 1026
    , 1029 (1999) (cleaned up).           However, "an
    order that finally adjudicates a benefit or penalty under the
    worker's compensation law is an appealable final order under HRS
    § 91-14(a), although other issues remain."         Lindinha v. Hilo
    Coast Processing Co., 104 Hawai i 164, 168, 
    86 P.3d 973
    , 977
    (2004) (citation omitted).      But when a determination of a
    compensation claim for benefits "has not been made[,] . . . the
    requisite decree of finality is lacking with respect to th[e]
    case."   Mitchell v. State of Hawai i, Dep't of Educ., 77 Hawai i
    305, 308, 
    884 P.2d 368
    , 371 (1994) (citation omitted).
    Here, the Order:     directs Suzuki to submit to medical
    examinations to ascertain the extent of her purported neck
    injury, declines to entertain her request for partial summary
    judgment, and denies her request for sanctions.          It does not end
    the LIRAB proceedings, leaving nothing further to be
    accomplished, nor does it finally adjudicate any matter of
    medical and temporary disability benefits.
    Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that case number CAAP-
    XX-XXXXXXX is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
    DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai i, November 3, 2022.
    /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
    Presiding Judge
    /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
    Associate Judge
    /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan
    Associate Judge
    2