NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
29-APR-2024
08:17 AM
Dkt. 54 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
In re F.W.H., by and through Aloha Nursing Rehab Centre
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CC171002013)
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 Notice of 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER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.W.H.'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NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER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.W.H., 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.W.H." and, thus, DHS was
required to accept an application and any documentation to
establish eligibility. Aloha Nursing claims that it submitted a
"March 2012 request for an application (through [Scott Gardner &
Company]) and its September 25, 2013 letter to DHS asking for
Medicaid benefits from April 2012[.]"
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
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
minor or incapacitated, someone acting responsibly for the
applicant."
The hearings officer made findings regarding DHS's
Med-QUEST Division Administrator, Judy Mohr Peterson's
(Peterson) June 17, 2016 response to Aloha Nursing. Notably,
Peterson stated that on March 28, 2012, Loraine Alambatin
(Alambatin) of Scott Gardner & Company requested "a copy of
[F.W.H.'s] eligibility review, as well as a statement of his
income and assets, stating [F.W.H.'s power of attorney] had
passed away and Aloha Nursing was starting the guardianship
process." Peterson further explained, "[h]owever, there was no
official documentation regarding guardianship proceedings taken
by Aloha Nursing, and the verbal statement was not sufficient."
Thus, "the department could not release information to her as
neither she nor Scott Gardner and Company were designated as
authorized representatives and had no legal authority for this
information."
Peterson also stated, "there is no record of any
application being submitted until October 11, 2013, when the
Department received a faxed copy of an application completed by
Mr. Michael Orlas, of Scott Gardner and Company, nine months
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
after the guardianship hearing." Aloha Nursing does not
challenge the hearing officer's findings. See Okada Trucking
Co., 97 Hawai‘i at 458, 40 P.3d at 81. There was no evidence the
March 2012 "request" and the September 25, 2013 "letter" were
applications DHS was required to accept.
Thus, Aloha Nursing failed to show it had standing to
appeal pursuant to HRS § 346-12 or HAR § 17-1711.1-9.
(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
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
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 March 2012, F.W.H.'s power of attorney passed away,
F.W.H.'s physician deemed him to be incapacitated, and Aloha
Nursing through Alambatin sent a note to inform DHS of these
events and that it "was starting the guardianship process." In
July 2012, a petition for guardianship was filed, and in
February 2013, a guardian was appointed. "Unfortunately,
[F.W.H.] had assets in California which delayed his receiving
Medicaid benefits," but he was later approved for Medicaid
assistance retroactive to July 1, 2013 until his death on
June 19, 2014.
Since F.W.H. had a legal guardian from February 2013
until his death, and "the delay in restarting the benefits was
because [F.W.H.] had assets in California, not because [F.W.H.]
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
did not have an authorized representative," Aloha Nursing did
not show F.W.H. was unable to protect his own interests. 2
(3) Finally, Aloha Nursing contends the circuit court
erred in failing to address the hearings officer's error "in
preventing DHS's witness from testifying" about the notice to
terminate F.W.H.'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, DHS began asking its witness about exhibits
including information from F.W.H.'s file on direct examination
and the hearings officer cautioned DHS those questions would
open "the door . . . to a lot of cross-examination questions."
Aloha Nursing later attempted to cross-examine DHS's witness
about when DHS terminated F.W.H.'s benefits, 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
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 513-14,
312 P.3d at 1220-21 (noting each of the prongs must be satisfied).
7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
limited . . . the lower tribunal is only authorized to carry out
the appellate court's mandate").
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court's
August 1, 2018 Order and August 1, 2018 Judgment.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, April 29, 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.
8