Opinion ID: 870455
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Final Decision and Order

Text: The second prong of the PASH requirements calls for an examination whether the agency's action ... represents `a final decision and order,' or `a preliminary ruling' such that deferral of review would deprive the claimant of adequate relief. PASH, 79 Hawai`i at 431, 903 P.2d at 1252. Kaleikini argues that this court has repeatedly found that the denial of a request for a contested case hearing (or to participate in one) is a sufficiently final decision for judicial review. (Citing Puna Geothermal, PASH, and In re Hawaii Gov't Employees' Ass'n, 63 Haw. 85, 88-89, 621 P.2d 361, 364 (1980)). We agree. As previously stated, this court, in PASH held that the circuit court properly exercised jurisdiction over an agency appeal where the agency denied a request by the appellants to participate in a contested case hearing. 79 Hawai`i at 431-33, 903 P.2d at 1252-54. Here, Kaleikini requested a contested case hearing, which DLNR denied. The denial of Kaleikini's request constituted a final decision and order inasmuch as it ended the litigation. Accordingly, this prong of the PASH requirements is met.