Opinion ID: 871688
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: AlohaCare's reply briefs

Text: In its reply to DHS's and the Insurance Commissioner's answering briefs, [24] Aloha-Care argues that it has standing and that the circuit court had jurisdiction over its appeal because it was aggrieved as that term is used in HRS § 91-14(a), and because this court held in Lingle that rulings disposing of declaratory actions have the same status as other agency orders and are therefore appealable pursuant to HRS § 91-14. In conclusion, AlohaCare asserts that [t]his [c]ourt has jurisdiction to hear AlohaCare's appeal of the [c]ircuit [c]ourt decision because AlohaCare is an aggrieved party, and, as such, it is afforded the right to appeal by HRS §§ 91-8 and 91-14.