§386-87  Appeals to appellate board.  (a)  A decision of the director shall be final and conclusive between the parties, except as provided in section 386-89, unless within twenty days after a copy has been sent to each party, either party appeals therefrom to the appellate board by filing a written notice of appeal with the appellate board or the department.  In all cases of appeal filed with the department the appellate board shall be notified of the pendency thereof by the director.  No compromise shall be effected in the appeal except in compliance with section 386-78.

     (b)  The appellate board shall hold a full hearing de novo on the appeal.

     (c)  The appellate board shall have power to review the findings of fact, conclusions of law and exercise of discretion by the director in hearing, determining or otherwise handling of any compensation case and may affirm, reverse or modify any compensation case upon review, or remand the case to the director for further proceedings and action.

     (d)  In the absence of an appeal and within thirty days after mailing of a certified copy of the appellate board's decision or order, the appellate board may, upon the application of the director or any other party, or upon its own motion, reopen the matter and thereupon may take further evidence or may modify its findings, conclusions or decisions.  The time to initiate judicial review shall run from the date of mailing of the further decision if the matter has been reopened.  If the application for reopening is denied, the time to initiate judicial review shall run from the date of mailing of the denial decision. [L 1963, c 116, pt of §1; Supp, §97-96; HRS §386-87; am L 1969, c 244, §2d; am L 1974, c 8, §1]

Cross References

  Hearings, see chapter 91.

Case Notes

  Constitutional.  24 H. 97 (1917).

  If board's questions to court are ambiguous or uncertain, the reserved question cannot be answered or determined.  31 H. 554 (1930).

  Reservations to supreme court confined to questions of law.  37 H. 517 (1947).  See 33 H. 412 (1935); 34 H. 65 (1937).

  Appeal lies from circuit court to supreme court.  38 H. 384 (1949).

  Contested case heard by appellate board is bound by requirements of §91-10.  54 H. 479, 510 P.2d 89 (1973).

  Issue of credibility is responsibility of appeals board as fact finder.  56 H. 552, 545 P.2d 692 (1976).

  Time for filing a written notice of appeal is mandatory.  57 H. 37, 549 P.2d 470 (1976).

  Denial of application for reconsideration under subsection (d) is not subject to requirements of §91-11.  57 H. 535, 560 P.2d 1292 (1977).

  A motion to reopen a case for newly discovered evidence pursuant to §386-89(a) tolls the twenty-day period within which a claimant must appeal the department's decision under this section.  85 H. 275, 942 P.2d 539 (1997).

  Collateral estoppel did not preclude determination that employee was permanently and totally disabled, despite employee's failure to appeal department's finding of no permanent disability, since finding was superfluous to department's decision.  8 H. App. 543, 812 P.2d 1199 (1991).

  Where there was no rational basis for board's refusing to consider additional evidence submitted by claimant, and no cogent explanation for board's failure to consider evidence in light of its direct effect on board's finding and conclusion, board abused its discretion in denying claimant's motion to reopen case.  93 H. 116 (App.), 997 P.2d 42 (2000).

  Claimant's appeal of director's decision was untimely where appeal was not filed for that decision within twenty-day deadline as required under subsection (a), notwithstanding that other issues were yet to be decided.  98 H. 508 (App.), 51 P.3d 375 (2002).

  At the time plaintiff's appeals matured, where plaintiff was precluded by Hawaii administrative rule §12-15-94(d) from appealing the director's decisions to the labor and industrial relations appeals board, plaintiff could not be faulted for failing to file notices of appeal with the board within the twenty-day time limit as required by this section; thus, plaintiff was given twenty days from the effective date of this judgment to file appeals of the director's decisions with the board.  120 H. 101 (App.), 201 P.3d 614 (2009).

  Section 386-73 and this section set forth the right to appeal from the decisions of the director in workers' compensation cases and it gives a party the right to appeal the decision of the director in a medical fee dispute to the labor and industrial relations appeals board; thus, the no-appeal provision of Hawaii administrative rule §12-15-94(d) was invalid as inconsistent with this chapter, and the director exceeded the director's rulemaking authority in making the director's decisions in medical fee disputes final and non-appealable.  120 H. 101 (App.), 201 P.3d 614 (2009).

  Petitioner's September 7, 2010 appeal was timely, where petitioner's June 14, 2010 letter to the disability compensation division (DCD) objecting to the director's approval of petitioner's attorney's fees and requesting a hearing, followed by petitioner's subsequent letters, was an application to reopen the case pursuant to §386-89(a) to permit the introduction of newly discovered evidence and the DCD's August 30, 2010 letter was the director's final decision denying the application to reopen the case.  132 H. 320, 321 P.3d 671 (2014).

  Where employee appealed the director of labor and industrial relations' (director) decision, which deferred determination of compensability on employee's workers' compensation claim until employee complied with the ordered independent medical examination, the labor and industrial relations appeals board (LIRAB) was required to exercise jurisdiction over the appeal because the LIRAB's failure to review the director's decision until entry of a final decision on employee's entitlement to benefits would deprive employee of adequate relief.  134 H. 99 (App.), 332 P.3d 701 (2014).

  The labor and industrial relations appeals board (board) erred when it dismissed workers' compensation appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon the appellants' filing of an unsigned notice of appeal, where:  (1) appellants' intent to appeal could be fairly inferred and was in fact acted upon by all parties and the board; and (2) the opposing party was not misled by the deficiency in the form of appellants' notice of appeal.  134 H. 103 (App.), 332 P.3d 705 (2014).

  Where claimant filed a motion to reopen record and for reconsideration for the purpose of submitting an MRI report, the labor and industrial relations board abused its discretion when it denied the motion.  Although the board has wide discretion in managing evidence, the equities of the case, and the overriding purpose of Hawaii's workers' compensation scheme, required the board to reopen the record and consider the MRI report.  137 H. 162 (App.), 366 P.3d 1041 (2016).

  Cited:  27 H. 431, 433 (1923); 31 H. 672, 676 (1930); 31 H. 814, 815 (1931); 32 H. 699, 700 (1933); 32 H. 928 (1933); 37 H. 556 (1947); 37 H. 583 (1947); 39 H. 258 (1952).