Opinion ID: 2654147
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: McLaren’s Prehearing Memorandum

Text: Before the LIRAB, on December 13, 2010, McLaren submitted a Prehearing Memorandum arguing that the DCD violated various provisions of the Hawai#i Administrative Procedures Act (“HAPA”) and Hawaii’s Workers’ Compensation Laws when it: (1) acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” and “ultra vires, i.e., 5 HRS § 386-73 (as amended in 2004) grants the Director original jurisdiction over all controversies and disputes arising under HRS chapter 386. 7  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI #I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  beyond the scope of its authority” by reducing the $7,105.52 requested in attorney’s fees and costs by 48% to $3,729.63; and (2) refused to hold a hearing upon McLaren’s timely Application for Hearing. In addition, McLaren argued that the DCD should have approved the requested $7,105.52 in attorney’s fees and costs or a substantially similar amount. McLaren argued that the DCD had no substantive information from McLaren, his file, or from the claimant; therefore, the DCD had “engaged in a perfunctory, arbitrary[,] and capricious ex post facto determination” of whether McLaren’s time and cost expenditures were necessary, and had “made no reasonable determination of ‘whether, at the time the work was performed, a reasonable attorney would have engaged in similar time expenditures.’” McLaren asserted that the LIRAB should conduct its own analysis of his fee request and “not give the DCD’s perfunctory review any weight.”