Case Title: Law Office of Hagino v. State, Dept. of Health

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-02-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
‘*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
No. 24534

le
iE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWABALS
Eg

‘LEI We} Li @34 9002

  

STATE OF HAWAT'I, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Respondent-Appellee, Self-Insured
eee
APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD
(CASE NO. AB 2000-418 (2-99-4087) )

sur prseo: ROE
1 Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acobé

 

ey and Duffy, JJ.)

 

Petitioner-appellant, Law Office of David M. Hagino
(hereinafter “Hagino”) appeals from the Labor and Industrial
Relations Appeals Board’s (hereinafter “LIRAB") July 3, 2001
order partially granting Hagino’s request for attorneys’ fees and
costs against the State of Hawai'i, Department of Health
[hereinafter “Doi").! On appeal, Hagino claims that: (1) the

LIRAB erred when it reduced the requested hourly fee rate from

+ agino appeals directly from LIRAB’s July 3, 2001 order pursuant

to Hawai's Revised Stacutes [hereinafter "HRS*) § 386-88 (1993), which states
5 fellows

 

$386-88 Jodicsal review. The decision or order of the
appellate board shall be fins) and conclusive, except as provided
iRrsection se€-89, unless within thirty days after mailing of
Certified copy of the decision or order, the director or any other
Sarty appeais to the suprene court subject to chapter 602 by
Piling a aritten notice of appeal with the appellate board. A fee
in the ancunt prescribed by section 607-5 for filing notice of

from a circuit court shall be paid to the appellate board
ting the notice of appeal from the board, which together
Aith the appellate court costs shall be deened costs of the
Gppellate court proceeding. The appeal shall be on the record and
the court shall review the appellate bosrd’s decision on matters
Gf lew only. No new evidence shail be introduced in the appellate
Clurts except thet the court may, if evidence is offered which 1s
Clearly newly discovered evidence and material to the just
Gecision of the appeal, admit the sane.

   

 

 

 

 

  

ast
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
$175/nour to $110/hour, an amount below that which was previously
approved by the director of the Department of Labor and
Industrial Relations; (2) the LIRAB erred when it reduced the
requested hours from 76.25 hours to 51 hours; and (3) the LIRAB
erred by failing to adopt findings of fact or otherwise providing
an explanation for its order and subsequent denial of Hagino’s
motion for reconsideration.

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold that the
LIRAB's July 3, 2001 order fails to provide a sufficient basis
for meaningful review. In order for this court to meaningfully
review the arguments presented by the parties on appeal, the
LIRAB's order must either provide a sufficient explanation or,
absent explanation, the LIRAB’s rationale must be readily
apparent from the record.’ Inasmuch as the LIRAB’s July 3, 2001

order is devoid of any explanation whatsoever and we can decipher

 

 

+ gee Ranger Ins. Co, vs Hinshaw, 103 Hawai'i 26, 33, 79 P.34 119,
126 (2003) (**the reasonableness of an expenditure of attorneys" fees is

matter within the discretion of the circuit court... « (and, thus, al
ied explanation of the rstionale underlying the reduction in attorneys’

warded is unnecessary.”
fees pust have sucport in the cecord.") (citing Eisley v. done Ins. Cou, 30
fgwats 25, 39, 975 F.2d 1145, 1159 (1398)) (ellipses in original) (alteration
Sn'originsl) (emphasis supplied); finlev, 90 Hawai'i at 39, 975 P.2d at 1159
(Gpheiding the trial court’s reduction of attorneys" fe Gespite the trial
Court's failure to provide an explanation ~~ because the reduction w
supported by the record); Wennik v. Polvaran Group Distribution, Inc., 304
F.34 123, 134 (let Cir. 2002); Maggi v, Catv of Schenectady, 415 Fad 246,
256 (2nd Cir. 2005); Louahner v, Univ of Eittsburah, 260 F-36173, 178 (3rd
Cir, 2001); inze MAB FR. t08 F.3d B63, 870 (4th Cir. 2008); Schwarz va.
Eolloder, ‘767 Foca 125; 153 (Sth Cir. 1985); Loulgville Black folice Orficers
Ora inc. v. City of Louisville, 200 F.2d 266, 273 (etn Cir. 1963); Unhott v
Eleaane Bath Leds 176 Fosd- 298, 409 (th Cir. 1999); 2

Sf the Doilatway. Arkansss School Dist., 114 F.2d 823, #25-e26 (6th Cir.
{Seii) Chainer -v- City of Loe Anaelee, 796 F.2d 1205, 1213 (9th Cie. 1986);
Mares v- Credit Biteas of Eaten, e01 F.2d 1197, 1201 (10th Cir. 1986); Mever
EnSullivan, $50 F.20 1029, 2035 (ith Cir. 1982),

2

 

       

 

 

    
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
no readily apparent rationale from the record, we have no choice
but to remand the present matter for recalculation or further
explanation. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment from which the
appeal is taken is vacated, and the matter is remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 17, 2006.
on the briefs:

David M. Hagino, Gf
petitioner-appellant

pro se AD cinae

Steve K. Miyasaki, Deputy »
Attorney General, for eanaate C1 ete Bee
respondent-appeliee

Gene Dicey +