Opinion ID: 2561914
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: Appellate review of the LIRAB's decision is governed by HRS § 91-14(g) (1993), which provides: Upon review of the record[,] the court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case with instructions for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision and order if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, conclusions, decisions, or orders are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; or (2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; or (4) Affected by other error of law; or (5) Clearly erroneous in view of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. Under HRS § 91-14(g), conclusions of law (COLs) are reviewable under subsections (1), (2), and (4); questions regarding procedural defects are reviewable under subsection (3). A COL is not binding on an appellate court and is freely reviewable for correctness. Thus, the court reviews COLs de novo, under the right/wrong standard. Tam v. Kaiser Permanente, 94 Hawai`i 487, 494, 17 P.3d 219, 226 (2001) (citations, original brackets, and ellipsis omitted) (format altered).
It is axiomatic that ripeness is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Whether a court possesses subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewable de novo.  Kaho`ohanohano v. Dep't of Human Servs., 117 Hawai`i 262, 281, 178 P.3d 538, 557 (2008) (citation omitted).