Title: Cawthon v. Ching, Director, State of Hawaii, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

no. 30086

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
ss SS

DEBBIE L. CAWTHON and RONALD D. CAWTHON,
Petitioners, 3

t 490 6002

 

 

DARWIN CHING, DIRECTOR, STATS OF HAWAI'I DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and
GARY HAMADA, ADMINISTRATOR, WORKER'S COMPENSATION
DIVISION, STATE OF HAWAI'I, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(By: Moon, C.J, Nakayama, AGObEY Duffy, and Recktenvald, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the petition for a weit of

mandamus filed by petitioners Debbie L. Cawthon and Ronald 9.
Cawthon and the papers in support, ‘t appears that the furnishing
of medical care and the payment of benefits under HRS Chapter 366
are not ministerial duties of the respondents. Therefore,
petitioners are not entitled to mandamus relief. See HRS § 602-
5(3) (Supp. 2008) (The supreme court has jurisdiction and power

to issue write of mandamus directed to public office!

 

to compel
them to fulfill the duties of their offices.); In Re Disciplinary
Rd. Of Hawais Supreme Court, 91 Hawai'i 363, 368, 984 P.2d 688,
693 (1999) (Mandamus relief is available to compel an official to
perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the
individual's claim is clear and certain, the official's duty is
ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt,
and no other remedy is available.); Salling v. Moon, 76 Hawai'i
273, 274 n, 3, 874 P.2d 1098, 1099 n.3 (1994) (“A duty is

ministerial where the law prescribes and defines the duty to be

oan
performed with such precision and certainty as to leave not

 

to the exercise of discretion and judgment.”). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ

 

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Haw

 

+ October 19, 2009.

Gm

Beewen Gromer ree

(2

Pore, Sasa +
Now €, Aelita