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

Heading: Insurance Commissioner's arguments

Text: The Insurance Commissioner puts forth five arguments in its answering brief. First, the Insurance Commissioner argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal because AlohaCare is not a person aggrieved under HRS § 91-14(a). Second, the Insurance Commissioner argues that AlohaCare fails to show that its substantial rights were prejudiced[,] and therefore reversal is not warranted under HRS § 91-14(g). [19] Instead, the Insurance Commissioner argues that [n]othing about any license or other interest of AlohaCare was at issue in the declaratory relief proceedings[,] since the Decision was that third party entities [Ohana and United] could perform the services specified in the DHS QExA RFP. Third, the Insurance Commissioner contends that where, as in this case, the Petition is based on hypothetical or speculative facts, it is within the Commissioner's discretion to deny the Petition pursuant to HAR § 16-201-50. The Insurance Commissioner argues that because COL 5, which found that certain allegations in the Petition relied upon speculative and hypothetical allegations regarding actions which may (or may not) be taken by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services[,] was unchallenged, the Petition was correctly denied. Next, the Insurance Commissioner argues that because AlohaCare did not challenge the FOFs and COLs that support the Commissioner's Decision, AlohaCare's points on appeal are in contravention of Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) 28(b)(4)(C). [20] Finally, the Insurance Commissioner argues that his interpretation and application of the statutes is entitled to deference.