2023 Hawaii Revised Statutes › Title 36. Civil Remedies and Defenses and Special Proceedings › 671. Medical Torts › 671-12 Review by panel required; notice; presentation of inquiry; request for a more definite statement of the inquiry.

§671-12 Review by panel required; notice; presentation of inquiry; request for a more definite statement of the inquiry.
(a) Any person or the person's representative having concerns regarding the existence of a medical tort shall submit an inquiry to the medical inquiry and conciliation panel before a suit based on the circumstances of the inquiry may be commenced in any court of this State. Inquiries shall be submitted to the medical inquiry and conciliation panel in writing and shall include the facts upon which the inquiry is based and the names of all parties against whom the inquiry is or may be made who are then known to the person or the person's representative.
(b) Within five business days after receipt of an inquiry the panel shall give notice of the inquiry and the statement of the inquiry, by certified mail, to all health care providers and others who are or may be parties to the inquiry and shall furnish copies of written inquiries to those persons. The notice shall set forth a date, not more than twenty days after the mailing of the notice, within which any health care provider against whom an inquiry is made shall file a written response and a date and time, not less than five days following the last date for filing a response, for a proceeding upon the inquiry by the panel and the parties. The notice shall describe the nature and purpose of the panel's proceedings and shall designate the place of the meeting. The times originally set forth in the notice may be enlarged by the chairperson, on due notice to all parties, for good cause.
(c) If the statement of the inquiry in the notice is so vague or ambiguous that any party receiving notice of the inquiry cannot reasonably be required to frame a written response, the party may submit a written request to the director of commerce and consumer affairs for a more definite statement before filing the written response. Copies of the request shall be provided to the panel and all affected parties. The request, which shall be ex parte and stay the proceedings of the panel until notice of the director's decision is given to the panel and all parties, shall specify the defects complained of and the details desired. The director may deny, grant, or modify the request at the director's own discretion, without the necessity of a hearing, although the director may reach a decision after consulting with the panel or any party or parties. The director shall provide notice of the decision to the panel and all affected parties. If the request is granted and any party so directed fails to provide a more definite statement of the inquiry within five days after notice of the decision, the panel may make an order as it deems just. This subsection shall not be used as a tactic to delay the proceedings. [L 1976, c 219, pt of §2; gen ch 1985; am L 1989, c 245, §1; am L 1993, c 96, §1; am L 2012, c 296, pt of §4]
Law Journals and Reviews
Tort and Insurance "Reform" in a Common Law Court. 14 UH L. Rev. 55 (1992).
Case Notes
Medical claim conciliation panel requirement is procedural rather than substantive, and does not apply to cases filed in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. 29 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (1998).
Claim was allowed to be heard because there was substantial compliance with procedural requirements. 69 H. 305, 741 P.2d 1280 (1987).
Where certain counts of plaintiff's complaint alleged errors or omissions in professional practice by a health care provider, thus falling under the definition of "medical tort" under §671-1(2), court properly ruled plaintiff could not proceed with those counts of suit without first submitting them to medical claim conciliation panel as required by §671-16 and this section. 89 H. 188, 970 P.2d 496 (1998).
Where plaintiff chose to sidestep requirements of §671-16 and this section by filing suit before seeking resolution of claims by a medical claim conciliation panel as required under these statutes, court properly dismissed complaint. 89 H. 188, 970 P.2d 496 (1998).
Where medical claim conciliation panel decision was filed after commencement of plaintiffs' suit in trial court, plaintiffs failed to comply with the requirements of this section; thus, trial court did not err in concluding it had no subject matter jurisdiction. 90 H. 425, 978 P.2d 863 (1999).
Subsection (a) requires only that a claimant set forth facts upon which the claim is based and include the names of all parties against whom the claim is or may be made who are then known to the claimant; nowhere in this section does it require plaintiffs to name all known negligent health care providers; having filed the requisite medical claim conciliation panel claim, participated in the required hearing, and rejected the panel's finding of no actionable negligence, plaintiffs satisfied this chapter's statutory prerequisites for filing suit in circuit court. 111 H. 74, 137 P.3d 980 (2006).
Where defendants city, city department of health, and city director of health fit within the definition of "health care facility" under §323D-2 and "health care provider" under §671-1, and as to them, each of the eight counts alleged a "medical tort", plaintiff was required to submit the eight counts against them to the medical claim conciliation panel pursuant to this section as a precondition to filing suit. 93 H. 490 (App.), 6 P.3d 362 (2000).
Circuit court properly dismissed plaintiff's claims for lack of jurisdiction where, although plaintiff was not the patient in the case, plaintiff's allegations arose directly from an alleged medical tort involving plaintiff's son, a patient, and subsection (a) states that "any person" must submit a statement of the claim to the medical claim conciliation panel before a suit based on that claim may be commenced in any state court. 121 H. 235 (App.), 216 P.3d 1258 (2009).
Plaintiff's claims of neglect, abuse, and failure to provide a safe home against care home defendants did not constitute "medical torts" within the meaning of §671-1; thus, plaintiff was not required to submit plaintiff's claims to a medical claim conciliation panel (MCCP) pursuant to this section and §671-16 as a condition for plaintiff to file suit against defendants, and the circuit court erred in dismissing plaintiff's suit based on plaintiff's failure to submit plaintiff's claims to a MCCP. 128 H. 405 (App.), 289 P.3d 1041 (2012).