Case Title: Amantiad v. Odum

Citation: 977 P.2d 160

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 1999-05-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
977 P.2d 160 (1999) 90 Hawai`i 152 Michael AMANTIAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Oahu Transit Services, Inc., Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee, v. Christopher ODUM, John Doe 1-10, Doe Partnerships, Corporations, and/or Other Entities 1-10, Defendants-Appellees. No. 21269. Supreme Court of Hawai`i. May 20, 1999. *162 R. Steven Geshell, Honolulu, for Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Amantiad. Roy F. Epstein and Kathy M. Sarria, of Reid, Richards & Miyagi, Honolulu, for Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee Oahu Transit Services, Inc. MOON, C.J., and KLEIN, LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, and RAMIL, JJ. Opinion of the Court by RAMIL, J. The instant appeal arises from the circuit court's denial of plaintiff-appellant Michael Amantiad's Hawai`i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 60(b)[1] motion to vacate the circuit court's August 26, 1997 order granting plaintiff-intervenor-appellee Oahu Transit Services, Inc.'s (hereinafter referred to as "OTS") motion to enforce settlement, after all parties, including defendant-appellee Christopher Odum, stipulated to dismiss the matter with prejudice. On appeal, Amantiad essentially contends that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying his motion to vacate the order enforcing the settlement, because: (1) the circuit court lacked jurisdiction, insofar as the parties stipulated to dismiss the matter with prejudice and the matter was dismissed on July 1, 1996; (2) the circuit court lacked jurisdiction, insofar as the Director of Labor and Industrial Relations (hereinafter referred to as the "Director of Labor") retains original jurisdiction, pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 386-73 (1993), over a compromise, waiver, or "wash" of future workers' compensation benefits; (3) a proper evidentiary hearing on the settlement's validity was not conducted; and (4) Amantiad's due process rights, under the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 5 of the Hawai`i Constitution (1978), were violated, insofar as he lacked the advice and benefit of his workers' compensation counsel. Because the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear OTS's motion to enforce settlement after all parties and claims were dismissed with prejudice, and because we hold that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction in this regard,[2] we reverse (1) the *163 circuit court's December 16, 1997 order denying Amantiad's motion to vacate and (2) the circuit court's August 26, 1997 order granting OTS's motion to enforce settlement. On February 3, 1993, at approximately 9:45 a.m., Amantiad, a bus driver for OTS, was servicing a bus stop on K&umacrhiō Avenue. Traveling in the same direction as Amantiad, Defendant Odum attempted to turn right onto Lewers Street in front of Amantiad's bus, from a lane immediately to the left of Amantiad. The right rear of Odum's vehicle struck Amantiad's bus. Based upon, inter alia, medical expenses and wage loss stemming from the February 3, 1993 accident, Amantiad filed a tort action against Odum on March 22, 1995, in the first circuit court. Pursuant to HRS § 386-8 (1993) and Hawai`i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 24, providing for intervention as of right, OTS moved to intervene as Amantiad's employer, on March 30, 1995. Amantiad filed a statement of no position on April 11, 1995, and the circuit court granted OTS's motion to intervene on April 25, 1995. OTS thereafter filed a complaint in intervention against Odum on April 27, 1995. Apparently, the matter was assigned to the Court Annexed Arbitration Program (CAAP); a CAAP arbitrator was appointed, and the arbitration was set for May 8, 1996. However, due to an ostensibly strong potential for settlement, the parties agreed to and engaged in a compressed settlement time line. With the aid of the circuit court, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations. An early settlement conference was set for and held on April 17, 1996; however, no settlement agreement was reached at that time. A second settlement conference was set for and held on May 2, 1996. At the time of the May 2, 1996 settlement conference, OTS's workers' compensation lien totaled $52,540.40, representing $27,667.80 in medical and indemnity payments and $24,873.60 in permanent partial disability benefits. At the May 2, 1996 settlement conference, Amantiad was represented by his "tort action" attorney, Melvin Agena; however, Stephen Hioki, his workers' compensation attorney, was not present.[3] The following exchange occurred at the May 2, 1996 hearing: (Emphases and brackets added.) On May 24, 1996, Amantiad executed a "Release and Settlement Agreement" (hereinafter referred to as the "May 24, 1996 Agreement"), which provided: Apparently, in conjunction with Amantiad's release, OTS executed a "Consent to Settlement Agreement and Release" (hereinafter referred to as the "Consent Agreement"),[4] providing: On July 1, 1996, pursuant to HRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(B), Amantiad, OTS, and Odum stipulated to dismiss with prejudice all claims and parties. Inasmuch as the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss, there was no judgment providing for the circuit court to retain jurisdiction for any reason.[5] On April 8, 1997, however, OTS moved to enforce the "settlement agreement." In support, OTS attached several documents, including inter alia: (1) the May 24, 1996 Agreement and (2) an Amended Stipulated Compromise and Release Agreement (hereinafter *166 referred to as the "Amended Release Agreement"), which was not signed. The Amended Release Agreement provided for Amantiad's release, waiver, and/or "wash" of all future workers' compensation benefits and provided a signature line for Gary S. Hamada, who was designated on the Amended Release Agreement as an Administrator of the Disability Compensation Division of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR). The attached copy of the Amended Release Agreement was not signed by Hamada. OTS's ultimate request for relief in its motion to enforce settlement was On July 22, 1997, in opposition to the motion to enforce settlement, Amantiad filed a declaration of counsel, Frank M. Fernandez (who was newly hired), and an affidavit by Amantiad. Fernandez's declaration averred that Amantiad did not have his workers' compensation attorney present at the settlement conference, that Amantiad would not have settled his future workers' compensation benefits had Mr. Hioki been present, and that "Amantiad was confused and was at a loss" without Mr. Hioki. Amantiad averred essentially the same. The circuit court granted OTS's motion to enforce the settlement on August 26, 1997. On September 16, 1997, Amantiad moved pursuant to HRCP Rule 60(b) to vacate the circuit court's order granting OTS's motion to enforce settlement.[6] In his written pleadings, Amantiad argued in support of his Rule 60(b) motion that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction, because: (1) the Director of Labor retains original jurisdiction, pursuant HRS § 386-73 (1993), over a waiver or wash of future workers' compensation benefits; and (2) the matter was dismissed with prejudice and no appeal was taken. On December 16, 1997, the circuit court denied Amantiad's motion to vacate the August 26, 1997 order. Amantiad timely appealed.[7] An appellate court reviews a circuit court's determination of an HRCP Rule 60 motion for an abuse of discretion. See Island Ins. Co., Inc. v. Santos, 86 Hawai`i 363, 366, 949 P.2d 203, 206 (App.1997) (citing Richardson v. Lane, 6 Haw.App. 614, 622, 736 P.2d 63, 69, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 953, 108 S. Ct. 345, 98 L. Ed. 2d 371 (1987), reh'g denied, 484 U.S. 1037, 108 S. Ct. 764, 98 L. Ed. 2d 781 (1988)). "The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo under the right/wrong standard." Lester v. Rapp, 85 Hawai`i 238, 241, 942 P.2d 502, 505 (1997) *167 (quoting State ex. rel. Bronster v. Yoshina, 84 Hawai`i 179, 183, 932 P.2d 316, 320 (1997)); see also State v. Ontiveros, 82 Hawai`i 446, 448, 923 P.2d 388, 390 (1996) (citation omitted). Questions regarding subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of a cause of action. See Waikiki Marketplace Inv. Co. v. Chair of Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the City and County of Honolulu, 86 Hawai`i 343, 348, 949 P.2d 183, 188 (App.1997) (citing Wong v. Wong, 79 Hawai`i 26, 29, 897 P.2d 953, 956 (1995)). When reviewing a case where the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the appellate court retains jurisdiction, not on the merits, but for the purpose of correcting the error in jurisdiction. See id. A judgment rendered by a circuit court without subject matter jurisdiction is void. See id. The dispositive issue in the instant appeal is whether the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enforce an oral settlement, entered on the record before the circuit court, after all parties stipulated to dismiss with prejudice all claims and parties. Based upon the following, we hold that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction. In Gilmartin v. Abastillas, 10 Haw.App. 283, 869 P.2d 1346 (1994), the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) addressed a substantially similar issue. Gilmartin involved an action for specific performance on an option to purchase a condominium unit. Just before trial, the parties negotiated a settlement agreement and read its terms into the record. Approximately one month later, they executed a release and settlement agreement that was neither approved by the circuit court nor incorporated into their stipulated dismissal. The parties stipulated to dismiss the matter with prejudice. A disagreement thereafter arose with respect to unpaid lease rent, interest, and maintenance fees; however, in order to complete the closing on the condominium unit, the parties agreed to settle the issue at a later date and to set aside a sum of money in escrow to cover the disputed sum. After further disagreement, Gilmartin moved the circuit court to enforce the specific terms of the settlement agreement and to award her the remaining escrow funds, plus attorneys' fees and costs. The circuit court summarily granted the motion. See id. at 285-86, 869 P.2d at 1348-49. Upon review, the ICA reversed the circuit court, stating that Id. at 289-91, 869 P.2d at 1349-50 (emphasis added); accord Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 381, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994) (holding *168 that a district court lacked jurisdiction and did not have "inherent authority" to enforce settlement where parties stipulated to dismiss the matter with prejudice). We agree with and hereby adopt the ICA's reasoning. Because the parties in the instant case entered into a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice as to all parties and claims, which was filed on July 1, 1996, but no party either (1) moved to vacate the dismissal or (2) instituted a separate action for specific performance of the settlement, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the oral settlement entered on the record. Consequently, the circuit court's August 26, 1997 order enforcing settlement is void. Therefore, the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Amantiad's September 16, 1997 HRCP Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the order granting OTS's motion to enforce settlement. On this basis alone, we reverse (1) the circuit court's December 16, 1997 order denying Amantiad's motion to vacate and (2) the circuit court's August 26, 1997 order enforcing settlementi.e., forcing Amantiad to sign the Amended Release Agreement or, in the alternative, invalidating the May 24, 1996 Agreement. However, inasmuch as Amantiad also properly raised the issue of the circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction over a "wash" of future workers' compensation benefits and the circuit apparently concluded that it retained said jurisdiction, we are compelled to address this issue. On May 2, 1996, through aid of counsel, Amantiad agreed, on the record before the circuit court, to "wash" his future workers' compensation benefits in return for $25,000, in a global settlement with Defendant Odum and OTS. Relying upon that promise, Odum paid $25,000 to Amantiad and $13,000 to OTS, extinguishing OTS's existing workers' compensation lien rights under HRS § 386-8. All parties thereafter stipulated to dismiss the action with prejudice. Amantiad's promise or agreement to "wash" his future workers' compensation benefits in exchange for the global settlement of his civil tort action implicates a dangerous commingling of and glaring conflict between the Director of Labor's original jurisdiction under HRS § 386-73 (1993) and this court's well-established support and fostering of settlement. We therefore must turn to HRS Chapter 386 to determine whether a compromise or "wash" of future workers' compensation benefits falls within the Director of Labor's original jurisdiction under HRS § 386-73 and, consequently, assuming that the circuit court otherwise has jurisdiction, to determine whether the circuit court can enforce a settlement regarding such benefits, absent the Director's prior consent or approval. "The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reviewable de novo.["] Franks v. City & County of Honolulu, 74 Haw. 328, 334, 843 P.2d 668, 671 (1993). Gray v. Administrative Dir. of the Court, 84 Hawai`i 138, 148, 931 P.2d 580, 590 *169 (1997) (internal citations, quotation marks, brackets, ellipses, and footnote omitted). Frank v. Hawaii Planing Mill Found., 88 Hawai`i 140, 144, 963 P.2d 349, 353 (1998) (some brackets added and some in original). We must further note that Survivors of Iida v. Oriental Imports, Inc., 84 Hawai`i 390, 397, 935 P.2d 105, 112 (App. 1997) (footnote omitted). Finally, this court has also stated "that `statutes abrogating common law rights must be strictly construed[.]'" Hough v. Pacific Ins. Co., Ltd., 83 Hawai`i 457, 463, 927 P.2d 858, 864 (1996) (citing Fonseca v. Pacific Constr., 54 Haw. 578, 585, 513 P.2d 156, 160 (1973); Burns Int'l Sec. Services v. Department of Transp., 66 Haw. 607, 611, 671 P.2d 446, 449 (1983) (explaining that "[w]here it does not appear there was a legislative purpose in superseding the common law, the common law will be followed"). We particularly note our long-standing support of compromise and settlement. As a general rule, a properly executed settlement precludes future litigation for its parties. See AIG Hawaii Ins. Co. v. Bateman, 82 Hawai`i 453, 458-59, 923 P.2d 395, 400-01, amended in part, 83 Hawai`i 203, 925 P.2d 373 (1996). Indeed, a settlement agreement Sylvester v. Animal Emergency Clinic of Oahu, 72 Haw. 560, 565-71, 825 P.2d 1053, 1056-59 (1992) (emphases added); see also Gossinger v. Association of Apartment Owners of the Regency of Ala Wai, 73 Haw. 412, 423-24, 835 P.2d 627, 633-34 (1992); Han v. Yang, 84 Hawai`i 162, 167-68, 931 P.2d 604, 609-10 (App.1997). With respect to a judgment by consent or an oral settlement entered on the record, the ICA has explained that Dowsett v. Cashman, 2 Haw.App. 77, 82-83, 625 P.2d 1064, 1068 (1981) (emphases added); accord Sylvester, 72 Haw. at 566, 825 P.2d at 1056. HRS Chapter 386 endows the Director of Labor with original jurisdiction over all controversies and disputes arising thereunder. In particular, HRS § 386-73 (1993) provides: When interpreting HRS § 386-73, this court has stated that, "[t]aken at face value, the foregoing would preclude original court action to settle controversies involving the workers' compensation law. It relegates the circuit court to a secondary role where workers' compensation is concernedthe enforcement of the Director's decisions." Travelers Ins. Co. v. Hawaii Roofing, Inc., 64 Haw. 380, 384, 641 P.2d 1333, 1336 (1982). Furthermore, "[a] statute which provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner or by a prescribed person or tribunal implies that it shall not be done otherwise or by a different person or tribunal...." Id. at 387, 641 P.2d at 1338 (citing State ex rel. Battle v. Hereford, 148 W.Va. 97, 103, 133 S.E.2d 86, 90 (1963)). In contrast to the Director of Labor's jurisdiction under HRS § 386-73, Hawai`i circuit courts retain jurisdiction over an employee's claims against third-party tortfeasors,[8] pursuant to HRS § 386-8 (1993), which provides in pertinent part: (Emphases added.) First, the plain language of HRS § 386-73 places all controversies or disputes arising under HRS Chapter 386 within the original jurisdiction of the Director of Labor. A claim for workers' compensation benefits, whether present or future,[9] arises under HRS Chapter 386 and is, therefore, within the original jurisdiction of the Director of Labor. Second, all references to an employer's right to payment under HRS § 386-8 are explained as "reimbursement" or payment for "expenditure for compensation." Therefore, HRS § 386-8 provides an employer with the right of intervention for existing lien rightsnot future or potential lien rights.[10] Further, in order to implement HRS Chapter 386, the Director of Labor has adopted administrative rules, pursuant to HRS § 386-72 (1993).[11] The rule corresponding to HRS § 386-8 is Hawai`i Administrative Rule (HAR) § 12-10-31 (1995), which provides: (Emphasis added.) Pursuant to HAR § 12-10-31, the Director of Labor retains the discretion, and necessarily the jurisdiction, to determine whether or not the employer has an obligation to make further or future compensation payments to the employee. In light of this provision, it necessarily follows that a compromise or settlement of "further" or future workers' compensation benefits may be nullified or voided by the Director of Labor, irrespective of what the parties have agreed. Therefore, in construing HRS §§ 386-8 and 386-73 with HAR § 12-10-31, we hold that it would be illogical and absurd to permit parties to compromise such future obligations, without the Director of Labor's prior consent or approval. Our conclusion today finds further support in HRS § 386-151 (1993),[12] which bestows upon the Director of Labor the fiduciary *174 obligation of administering and maintaining the special compensation fund.[13] For example, the instant record reveals that Amantiad's injury has been deemed a permanent partial disability (in light of OTS's payment of $24,873.60 in permanent partial disability benefits), implicating a potential need for future reliance upon the special compensation fund under HRS § 386-33. In light of the Director of Labor's original jurisdiction under HRS § 386-73, the Director's discretion under HAR § 12-10-31, and the Director's fiduciary obligations under various provisions of Chapter 386, we hold that a settlement or compromise of future workers' compensation benefits constitutes a controversy or dispute within the original jurisdiction of the Director of Labor, under section 386-73. Furthermore, we hold that a settlement or compromise of future workers' compensation benefits cannot be valid or binding without the consent or approval of the Director of Labor. Therefore, assuming that the circuit court otherwise has jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement, the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to enforce a compromise or settlement of future workers' compensation benefits, absent the prior consent or approval of the Director of Labor.[14] Because the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear OTS's motion to *175 enforce settlement, we reverse (1) the circuit court's December 16, 1997 order denying Amantiad's motion to vacate the order enforcing settlement and (2) the circuit court's August 26, 1997 order granting OTS's motion to enforce settlement. We also hold that a settlement or compromise of future workers' compensation benefits constitutes a controversy or dispute within the original jurisdiction of the Director of Labor, pursuant to HRS §§ 386-73 and 386-8 and HAR § 12-10-31, and that the circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to enforce such a compromise or settlement, absent the prior consent or approval of the Director of Labor. [1] HRCP Rule 60, entitled "Relief from Judgment or Order," provides in pertinent part: (b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.... [2] Regarding Amantiad's second point of error on appeal, see infra, discussion section II.B. With respect to Amantiad's third point of error on appeal, because we hold infra that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear OTS's motion to enforce settlement, we hold that the circuit court also lacked jurisdiction to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the validity of the settlement. Therefore, we need not address the merits of this issue. Amantiad's fourth point or error on appeal, that he has a constitutional due process right to have a workers' compensation attorney (not just any attorney) present during settlement negotiations, lacks merit. Finally, he appears to argue in his opening brief that the circuit court violated certain Canons of Judicial Conduct by failing to disqualify itself from the motion to enforce settlement, because it was the same court to aid in settlement negotiations. Inasmuch as Amantiad failed properly to allege this claim in a point of error on appeal, we need not address the merits of this issue. [3] The record reveals that Hioki was notified about the second settlement conference but did not attend. Hioki explained, by way of letter and affidavit, that he believed there was no reason for him to attend the settlement conference because he believed that the parties would not be discussing Amantiad's future workers' compensation benefits. [4] OTS's Consent Agreement was signed but not dated. [5] See infra note 7. [6] The motion came on for hearing on October 8, 1997. Although Amantiad apparently designated the transcript from the October 8, 1997 hearing with the circuit court, the hearing transcript was not transferred to the supreme court. Therefore, we are unable to review the transcript. [7] On April 14, 1998, we dismissed Amantiad's appeal for a lack of jurisdiction, because the stipulation to dismiss with prejudice as to all claims and parties, filed July 1, 1996, was not reduced to a final judgment in accordance with HRCP Rule 58 and Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai`i 115, 119-120, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338-39 (1994), rendering the appeal of the December 16, 1997 order premature. On April 29, 1998, upon considering Amantiad's motion for reconsideration, filed April 24, 1998, we reinstated the appeal and reserved the jurisdictional issue for later determination. We now address this issue. We agree with Amantiad and hold that a separate judgment is neither required nor authorized, inasmuch as a plaintiff's dismissal of an action, by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties, is effective "without order of [the] court." See HRCP Rule 41(a). Therefore, we have jurisdiction to review the instant appeal. [8] See Hough v. Pacific Ins. Co., Ltd., 83 Hawai`i 457, 465-68, 927 P.2d 858, 866-69 (1996); Sato v. Tawata, 79 Hawai`i 14, 17, 897 P.2d 941, 944 (1995); Shimabuku v. Montgomery Elev. Co., 79 Hawai`i 352, 357-58, 903 P.2d 48, 52-53 (1995); cf. Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 82 Hawai`i 1, 6, 919 P.2d 263, 268 (1996); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Hawaii Roofing, Inc., 64 Haw. 380, 641 P.2d 1333 (1982). [9] Cf. HRS § 386-78(a) (Supp.1998) which provides that "[n]o compromise in regard to a claim for compensation pending before the director shall be valid unless it is approved by decision of the director as conforming to this chapter and made a part of the decision." [10] This section's reference to an employer's protection from future payments is only limited to the amount of the settlement. If the employee has future need for compensation, beyond the settlement amount, the employer may be liable for payment. [11] HRS § 386-72, entitled "Rule making powers" provides: "In conformity with and subject to chapter 91, the director of labor ... shall make rules, not inconsistent with this chapter, which the director deems necessary for or conducive to its proper application and enforcement." [12] HRS § 386-151 provides in pertinent part that: (a) There is hereby created a fund to be known as the special compensation fund which shall consist of payments made to it as provided by law. The director of finance of the State shall be custodian of the fund, and all disbursements therefrom shall be paid by the director of finance upon orders by the director of labor and industrial relations. .... (c) The director shall appoint annually a certified public accountant to examine and audit all the books and records relating to the special compensation fund and shall advise the director as to the fund's solvency, including recommendations as to levies and charges provided for in section 386-152 and the required level of funding.... (Emphasis added.) [13] For example, HRS § 386-3 (1993) provides that "[i]f an employee suffers personal injury either by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment or by disease proximately caused by or resulting from the nature of the employment, the employee's employer or the special compensation fund shall pay compensation to the employee or the employee's dependents[.]" (Emphasis added.) HRS § 386-33 (1993), entitled "Subsequent injuries that would increase disability," also provides in part: (a) Where prior to any injury an employee suffers from a previous permanent partial disability already existing prior to the injury for which compensation is claimed, and the disability resulting from the injury combines with the previous disability, whether the previous permanent partial disability was incurred during past or present periods of employment, to result in a greater permanent partial disability or in permanent total disability or in death then weekly benefits shall be paid as follows: (1) In cases where the disability resulting from the injury combines with the previous disability to result in greater permanent partial disability the employer shall pay the employee compensation for the employee's actual permanent partial disability but for not more than one hundred four weeks; the balance if any of compensation payable to the employee for the employee's actual permanent partial disability shall thereafter be paid out of the special compensation fund; provided that in successive injury cases where the claimant's entire permanent partial disability is due to more than one compensable injury, the amount of the award for the subsequent injury shall be offset by the amount awarded for the prior compensable injury; (2) In cases where the disability resulting from the injury combines with the previous disability to result in permanent total disability, the employer shall pay the employee for one hundred four weeks and thereafter compensation for permanent total disability shall be paid out of the special compensation fund; and (3) In cases where the disability resulting from the injury combines with the previous disability to result in death the employer shall pay weekly benefits in accordance with sections 386-41 and 386-43 but for not more than one hundred four weeks; the balance of compensation payable under those sections shall thereafter be paid out of the special compensation fund .... (Emphases added.) Similarly, HRS § 386-56 (1993), which provides for payment from the special compensation fund in the case of default, states in part: "Where an injured employee or the employee's dependents fail to receive prompt and proper compensation and this default is caused through no fault of the employee, the director shall pay the full amount of all compensation awards and benefits from the special compensation fund to the employee or dependent." (Emphasis added.) [14] This is in accord with the current practice of attorneys working in the area of workers' compensation law. The record reveals that OTS intended to submit the Amended Release Agreement to the DLIR for signature. OTS could have avoided the instant quandary by simply obtaining the Director's consent or approval prior to entering into settlement negotiations before the circuit court. Pursuant to HRS §§ 386-73 and 386-91 (1993), the circuit court would have had the authority to enforce the Director's decision in this regard. That being said, we decline to address whether the Release and Settlement Agreement and the Consent Agreement are valid and binding in the instant case.