NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
19-APR-2024
08:06 AM
Dkt. 65 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
In re F.T., by and through Aloha Nursing Rehab Centre
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CC171002012)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)
Appellant-Appellant Aloha Nursing Rehab Centre (Aloha
Nursing) appeals from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's 1
August 1, 2018 "Order Affirming Administrative Hearing Decision
Dated November 20, 2017" (August 1, 2018 Order) and August 1,
2018 Judgment.
On appeal, Aloha Nursing challenges the circuit
court's determination on standing and the hearings officer's
exclusion of evidence.
1 The Honorable Keith K. Hiraoka presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve the
points of error as discussed below, and affirm.
(1) Aloha Nursing first contends the circuit court
erred in affirming Appellee-Appellee State of Hawai‘i, Department
of Human Services (DHS) hearings officer's denial of Aloha
Nursing's standing on F.T.'s behalf, arguing the circuit court's
construction of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 346-12 (2015)
was too narrow.
"On appeal, the issue of standing is reviewed de novo
under the right/wrong standard." Abaya v. Mantell, 112 Hawai‘i
176, 180, 145 P.3d 719, 723 (2006).
Under HRS § 346-12,
[a]n applicant or recipient, deeming oneself aggrieved,
shall be entitled to appeal to the director in the manner
prescribed by department rules and shall be afforded
reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing at which
all of the evidence presented by the parties, to the extent
allowed by chapter 91, shall be considered in a fair and
impartial manner.
(Emphasis added.) Applicant is defined as "the person for whose
use and benefit application for services or public assistance is
made" and recipient is defined as "the person for whose use and
benefit services are rendered or a grant of public assistance is
made." HRS § 346-1 (2015).
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Here, Aloha Nursing has not shown it was the applicant
or recipient as defined by HRS § 346-1. Moreover, the hearings
officer found "Aloha Nursing has not provided evidence that it
is an authorized representative of" F.T., and Aloha Nursing did
not challenge this finding. See Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of
Water Supply, 97 Hawai‘i 450, 458, 40 P.3d 73, 81 (2002)
("Findings of fact . . . that are not challenged on appeal are
binding on the appellate court.").
Aloha Nursing also relies on Hawai‘i Administrative
Rules (HAR) § 17-1711.1-9 (eff. 2013) for the proposition that
it "acted responsibly on behalf of F.T." HAR § 17-1711.1-9
provides "[t]he department must accept an application for
medical assistance and any documentation required to establish
eligibility from an applicant, an adult who is in the
applicant's household or family, an authorized representative,
or if the applicant is a minor or incapacitated, someone acting
responsibly for the applicant." However, HAR § 17-1711.1-9
covers from whom DHS can accept an application, not the
appellate process.
Thus, Aloha Nursing failed to show it had standing to
appeal pursuant to HRS § 346-12.
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(2) Aloha Nursing next contends the circuit court
erred in affirming the hearings officer's denial of Aloha
Nursing's third-party standing.
"In the ordinary course, a litigant must assert his or
her own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest a claim to
relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties."
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410 (1991). Under the test for
third-party standing, litigants have a right to bring actions on
behalf of third parties if "three important criteria are" met:
(1) the litigant has suffered an injury in fact, thus
giving him or her a sufficiently concrete interest in the
outcome of the issue in dispute, (2) the litigant has a
close relationship to the third party, and (3) there is
some hindrance to the third party's ability to protect his
or her own interests.
In re AS, 130 Hawai‘i 486, 513, 312 P.3d 1193, 1220 (App. 2013)
(citing Powers, 499 U.S. at 410-11). The supreme court has
noted "the legislature may limit standing to sue despite an
injury in fact where plaintiff asserts rights" arising from a
statute. Akau v. Olohana Corp., 65 Haw. 383, 390, 652 P.2d
1130, 1135 (1982).
Here, the legislature appears to have limited standing
by enacting HRS § 346-12. But even if we were to consider Aloha
Nursing's argument, Aloha Nursing did not meet the test for
third-party standing. In this case, the hearings officer found
DHS terminated F.T.'s Medicaid benefits in December 2012 due to
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
excess resources; DHS denied F.T.'s June 2013 application for
assistance due to excess resources; and F.T. "had a legal
guardian from January 29, 2013 to June 29, 2014" when she passed
away. As F.T. had a legal guardian from January 2013 (the month
after DHS terminated Medicaid benefits) until she died, Aloha
Nursing did not show F.T. was unable to protect her own
interests. 2
(3) Finally, Aloha Nursing contends the circuit court
erred in failing to address the hearings officer's refusal of
Aloha Nursing's cross-examination of DHS's witness about the
notice to terminate F.T.'s Medicaid benefits.
The circuit court originally remanded this case for a
hearing on whether Aloha Nursing had standing. However, at the
hearing on remand, Aloha Nursing attempted to cross-examine
DHS's witness about the termination of benefits notice, DHS
objected, and the hearings officer sustained the objections.
Thus, as Aloha Nursing's questions exceeded the scope of remand,
we cannot say sustaining the objections was error. See
generally, 2 Am. Jur. 2d Admin. Law § 550 (2024) (noting "when
the scope of remand [to an administrative agency] is limited
. . . the lower tribunal is only authorized to carry out the
2 As Aloha Nursing does not meet this prong of the test, we do not
analyze the other two prongs. See generally, In re AS, 130 Hawai‘i at 513,
312 P.3d at 1220 (noting all three criteria must be met).
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
appellate court's mandate"). As such, the circuit court not
addressing this issue is not reversible error.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court's
August 1, 2018 Order and August 1, 2018 Judgment.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, April 19, 2024.
On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Acting Chief Judge
Thomas E. Bush,
for Appellant-Appellant. /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Associate Judge
James W. Walther,
Lili A. Young, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Deputy Attorneys General, Associate Judge
for Appellee-Appellee.
6