Case Title: Haque v. Hawaii Residency Program, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-06-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW UBrnet

*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***

 

No. 26934

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

 

MOPIZ HAQUE, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant

 

HAWAII RESIDENCY PROGRAM, INC.; RICHARD I. FRANKEL, M.D.
and PATRICK J. SOUSA, M.D., Defendants-Appellees 3
and cS

DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100, Defendants

ld
oats

 

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT court gl E
{erv, NO, O0-1-1798) as

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, and Duffy, JJ., and
Circuit Judge Nishimura in place of Acoba, J., recused)
Plaintiff-Appellant Nofiz Haque, M.D., appeals from the

October 8, 2004 final judgment of the Circuit Court of the First
Circuit! in favor of Defendants-Appellees Hawaii Residency
Program, Inc. (HRP), Richard I. Frankel, M.D., and Patrick J.
Sousa, M.D. (hereinafter, collectively, Defendants]. Dr. Haque
contends that the circuit court erred in entering its “order
Granting Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement”
because: (1) the written settlement agreement enforced by the
court (hereinafter, Draft #2) contained provisions to which he

never agreed; and (2) “The restrictions imposed upon Dr. Haque by

 

The Honorable Eden Elizabeth Hifo presided over this matter beginning
June 21, 2004. The Honorable Bert I. Ayabe presided over this matter from
Sune 4,"2003 to June 21, 2004. The liondrable bexter Del Rosario presided over
this matter from May 10, 2002 to June 4, 2003. The Honorable Dan T. Kochi
Initially presided over’ this matter until May 10, 2002-
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

 

the circuit court should be void as against public policy.”
Defendants counter that: (1) Dr. Haque’s counsel specifically
agreed to the inclusion of the provision of which Dr. Haque now
complains; (2) Draft #2 accurately reflects the agreement placed
on the record? (3) Draft #2 does not preclude Dr. Haque from
bringing concerns about patient care to the attention of proper
authorities? and (4) Dr. Haque’s assertion that he has complaints
against Defendants that are improperly precluded by the
jet tlement agreement is purely speculative.

upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advocated and the issues raised, we hold as

follows:

 

(1) The circuit court did not err in enforcing Draft
42. See Assocs. Fin, Servs, Co. of Hawai'i, Inc. v. Mito, 87
Hawai" 19, 28, 950 P.2d 1219, 1228 (1998) (quoting Sylvester v.
Animal Bnergency Clinic of Oahu, 72 Haw. 560, 565, 825 P.2d 1053,
1056 (1992)) (“A trial court’s determination regarding the
enforceability of a settlement agreement is a conclusion of law
reviewable de nove."); see also Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawai'i 152,
162, 977 P.2d 160, 170 (1999) (quoting Haller v. Wallis, 89
Wash.2d $39, 544, 573 P.2d 1302, 1305 (1978)) (“The law favors
settlements and consequently it must favor their finality.”).

Dr. Haque admitted in his Opening Brief that @ settlement among
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION ** *

 

all parties was reached in @ private mediation following
extensive discovery and motion practice and that the terms of the
settlement were placed upon the circuit court record. Draft #2
substantially conforms to the agreement placed upon the record
inasmuch as Dr. Haque agreed to release all of his claims; he did
not indicate that he intended only to release claims filed in
certain forums. See Matsuura v, E.1. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.,
102 Hawai'i 149, 174, 73 P.3d 687, 712 (2003) (*[S]ettlement
agreenents in Hawai"i are viewed as contracts.” (Citations
omitted.)); Shimabuku v, Montgomery Elevator Co., 79 Hawai'i 352,
358, 903 P.2d 48, 53-54 (1995) ("A release is an ‘abandonment of
claim to party against whom it exists and is a surrender of a
cause of action and may be gratuitous or for consideration’ and
occurs when a party gives up or abandons a claim or right.”
(Citations and brackets omitted.)); Earl M. Jorgensen Co, v. Mark
Constr, Inc., $6 Haw. 466, 470-71, 540 P.24 978, 982 (1975)
(“unexpressed intentions are nugatory when the problem is to

ascertain the legal relations, if any, between two parties.”);

Standard Mont., Inc. v. Kekona, 99 Hawai'i 125, 134, 53 P.3d 264,
273 (App. 2001) (*[T]he purely subjective, or secret, intent of a

party in assenting is irrelevant in an inguiry into the
contractual intent of the parties.”). Therefore, Draft #2 is not
rendered unenforceable merely because it specified certain forums

in which Dr. Hague could not bring his released claims;
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

 

(2) pratt #2 does not violate public policy because the
written settlement agreenent does not preclude Dr. Haque from
reporting concerns over patient care. First, Dr. Haque has only
released claims that he has or may have. As Defendants concede,
this does not prohibit him from raising concerns regarding
patients. Second, Dr. Haque is not restricted from filing
complaints with private organizations such as the Accreditation

Council for Graduate Medical Education, which Draft #2 expressly

 

allows him to do;
(3) The circuit court did not err in enforcing Draft
#2 because Dr. Haque’s alleged reservation of his right to file
complaints in public agencies was not part of the settlement in
that there is no evidence that his intent to make such a
reservation was ever raised during settlement negotiations. see
Milo, 87 Hawas's at 32, 950 P.2d at 1232 (stating that, where
“(t]he record is devoid of any evidence that tax considerations
were ever raised during [settlement] negotiations(, 1" tax
considerations were not part of the settlement and the circuit

court did not err in enforcing the agreement).? Therefore,

 

Ehrough his counsel at the
‘of paragraph 2(c) in

2 Defendants also assert that Or. Haque,
une 22, 2004 hearing, did in fact agree to the Lengua:
Draft #2 and also agréed that if Dr. Heque did not execute the settienent
‘agreenent by July 13, 2004 and did fot submit the contemplated stipulation for
Gismissal by July 13, 2004, then the Defensants could submit, and the court
could enter, an Order enforcing the settlenent agreement. Or. Haque counters
that “Defendants nowhere cite to any evidence in the record reflecting that
De. Haque’s counsel had the written authority required by (Hawai'i Revised
Statutes (HIRS)] § 605-7 [(1993)] to agree to terms Other than those placed on
(continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the circuit court’s
October 8, 2004 final judoment is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 21, 2006.

on the briefs:

Frederick W. Rohlfing, IIT, GO
for plaintiff-appellant
Mofiz Haque, M.D.

Regalia

A. Richard Philpott,
Carolyn K. Gugelyk,

and Lian Y. Ebesugawa Rete Oraeleer gree
(of Goodsill Anderson a

Quinn « seifel). for

-defendants-appellees Gone aig oe

Hawaii Residency Program,

Ince; Richard 1. Frankel,

M.D.; and Patrick J. Role Hduinur—

Sousa, M.D.

 

 

(,..continued)
the record at the Novenber 4, 2003 hearing.” This court need not determine

Haque's counsel hea authority to agree to the language of Draft 42
22, 2004 hearing, however, because even assuring, axausnde, that
.Nggue's colnsel dia not have written authority, for the reasons discussed
herein, the circuit court did not err sn enforcing Draft #2

         
  

 

  

5