HI Rev Stat § 386-73 (2021)
2021 Hawaii Revised Statutes|Title 21. Labor and Industrial Relations|386. Workers' Compensation Law|386-73 Original jurisdiction over controversies.

  §386-73 Original jurisdiction over controversies. Unless otherwise provided, the director of labor and industrial relations shall have original jurisdiction over all controversies and disputes arising under this chapter. The decisions of the director shall be enforceable by the circuit court as provided in section 386-91. There shall be a right of appeal from the decisions of the director to the appellate board and thence to the intermediate appellate court, subject to chapter 602, as provided in sections 386-87 and 386-88, but in no case shall an appeal operate as a supersedeas or stay unless the appellate board or the appellate court so orders. [L 1963, c 116, pt of §1; Supp, §97-72; HRS §386-73; am L 1969, c 244, §2b; am L 1979, c 111, §18; am L 2004, c 202, §42; am L 2006, c 94, §1; am L 2010, c 109, §1] Cross References  Appeal, see chapter 91. Rules of Court  Appeal to supreme court, stay, see Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure. Case Notes  This section and §386-88 supersede §91-14 and remove the circuit court from the appellate process with regard to proceedings brought under chapter 386. 53 H. 640, 500 P.2d 746 (1972).  "Independent system of legal relations" in this chapter debars declaratory relief under chapter 632. 64 H. 380, 641 P.2d 1333 (1982).  Section does not deprive circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction over common law tort claims not based on the original work injury. 83 H. 457, 927 P.2d 858 (1996).  Where claimant's common law tort claims against employer's insurer did not arise under this chapter, director did not have original jurisdiction under this section. 83 H. 457, 927 P.2d 858 (1996).  Where claimant's complaint raised a "controversy or dispute under this chapter" over which the director had original jurisdiction, summary judgment properly granted by circuit court as court was without jurisdiction over claim. 83 H. 457, 927 P.2d 858 (1996).  A settlement or compromise of future workers' compensation benefits constitutes a controversy or dispute within the original jurisdiction of the director of labor and industrial relations under this section. 90 H. 152, 977 P.2d 160 (1999).  Under §386-8, this section, and Hawaii administrative rule §12-10-31, a settlement or compromise of future workers' compensation benefits cannot be valid or binding without the consent or approval of the director of labor and industrial relations. 90 H. 152, 977 P.2d 160 (1999).  Where plaintiff's claims did not arise under this chapter, the exclusive remedy and original jurisdiction provisions in the workers' compensation statute did not apply, and where plaintiff's claims for relief of tortious conduct on the part of workers' compensation insurer were not within the original jurisdiction of the labor director, trial court erred in granting summary judgment on that basis. 90 H. 407, 978 P.2d 845 (1999).  This section and §386-87 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).  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).  Cited: 24 H. 731, 736 (1919).