Case Notes

• Jurisdiction: Hawaii,United States
• Citation: Vol. 16 No. 03
• Publication year: 2012

CASE NOTES

Supreme Court

Administrative

Alohacare v. Ito, et al., No. SCAP-30276, January 25, 2012 (Recktenwald, C.J.; Acoba, J., concurring and dissenting separately). Alohacare, among other entities, including United Healthcare (United) and Ohana Health Plan (Ohana) responded to a RFP to bid on contracts providing services for the State's Medicaid aged, blind, or disabled members. DHS awarded contracts to United and Ohana. Alohacare protested. Alohacare petitioned the Insurance Commissioner for declaratory relief that accident and health insurers like United and Ohana were not properly licensed to carry out the activities called for under the contract and that a health maintenance organization license issued pursuant to the Health Maintenance Organization Act was required. The Insurance Commissioner concluded that a health maintenance organization license was not required. The circuit court upheld the Insurance Commissioner's decision. Alohacare appealed. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that Alohacare had standing to appeal the Insurance Commissioner's decision. Furthermore, both accident and health insurers and health maintenance organizations are authorized to offer the closed panel or limited physician group model of care required by Quest Expanded Access contracts and that this holding did not nullify the Health Maintenance Organization Act.

Justice Acoba would have held that (1) an "interested" person under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-8 is one who is affected by or involved with any statute, rule, or order under that administrative agency's jurisdiction; (2) an interested person may appeal a declaratory order issued by an agency under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91 8; (3) Alohacare, as an "interested person," was thus entitled, pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91 8, to appeal the Commissioner's order declaring that bidders for QExA contracts did not need a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) license to the circuit court, using the procedure in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-14; (4) however, Alohacare had no standing to appeal the Commissioner's order denying its request that the contracts awarded to United and Ohana, the successful bidders, be declared invalid; (5) but a declaration as to the validity of the contracts could have been cognizable in a court action for declaratory judgment under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 632 1. Until this decision, "person aggrieved" meant a party appealing from a decision made in a contested case hearing under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-14. Justice Acoba opined that the majority misapplied the term "person aggrieved" by requiring aggrieved and injury-in-fact status of a party appealing a declaratory order under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-8. By requiring a party appealing from a declaratory order to show that it is an aggrieved party and has suffered an injury-in-fact, the majority interposes a standing requirement not found in Haw. Rev. Stat. chapter 91 and erects barriers to review of declaratory orders that did not exist before.

Note: To access the full text of the opinions on-line, see the Judiciary's web site at http://www.courts.state.hi.us/opinions_and_orders/index.htm.

Criminal

State v. Eid, No. SCWC-29587, January 26, 2012 (Recktenwald, J.; Acoba, J., concurring separately). Eid was charged with excessive speeding when a police officer allegedly paced Eid's car with his own vehicle and concluded that Eid was traveling 65 miles-per-hour in a twenty five mph zone. Prior to the incident, the police officer had speed checks conducted on his vehicle at an automotive center. These checks were intended to establish that the speedometer was accurate. Prior to trial, Eid filed a motion in limine to exclude any speed check or speedometer reading evidence on the ground that the State would be unable to lay a sufficient foundation. The district court denied the motion in limine. The ICA determined that the State did not meet the foundational requirements of State v. Fitzwater, 122 Hawaii 354, 376-77, 227 P3d 520, 542-543 (2010), because the State only established the manufacturer of the "master head" component of the speed...