Opinion ID: 871688
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: AlohaCare is a person aggrieved because it suffered an injury-in-fact

Text: HRS chapter 91 does not define the term person aggrieved, but this court has noted that `person aggrieved' appears to be essentially synonymous with someone who has suffered `injury in fact.' E & J Lounge Operating Co. v. Liquor Comm'n of the City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 118 Hawai`i 320, 345 n. 35, 189 P.3d 432, 457 n. 35 (2008) (citation and some quotation marks omitted). Whether a party has suffered an injury in fact is determined under a three-part test: (1) whether the person `has suffered an actual or threatened injury as a result of the [agency's decision],' (2) whether `the injury is fairly traceable to the [agency's decision],' and (3) whether `a favorable decision would likely provide relief for [the person's] injury.' Id. (some brackets added and some in original) (quoting Keahole Def. Coal., Inc. v. Bd. of Land & Natural Res., 110 Hawai`i 419, 434, 134 P.3d 585, 600 (2006)). In its reply brief, AlohaCare argues that it suffered an actual or threatened injury on two grounds. First, AlohaCare agrees with the Insurance Commissioner's determination that AlohaCare was aggrieved because a finding by the Commissioner that [United] and/or [Ohana] are properly licensed to perform the services required under the QExA contracts in issue . . . is effectively a finding that those entities can compete against [AlohaCare] for an award of the QExA contract in issue. Second, AlohaCare contends that its HMO license has been taken away or substantially diminished by the Insurance Commissioner's Decision. [27] AlohaCare argues that this effect on its license is not limited to QExA, but applies to any activity which involves arranging for the delivery of health care services. AlohaCare's argument concerning the effect of the Decision on its other activities is not supported by the record. Neither the record on appeal nor the administrative record on appeal contain any documents, exhibits, or testimony that would establish AlohaCare's possible injury relating to other activities. See United Pub. Workers, Local 646, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Brown, 80 Hawai`i 376, 380-81, 910 P.2d 147, 151-52 (App.1996) (holding that a union did not have standing because its asserted possible injuries of future charges or civil suits against the Union that could affect its financial resources were not demonstrated in the record through documents, exhibits or testimony). Accordingly, this injury is not sufficient to establish that AlohaCare is a person aggrieved[.] However, as noted by the Insurance Commissioner, AlohaCare was adversely affected by the Decision with respect to the type of license required to offer the QExA plan because the conclusion that United and Ohana are properly licensed to perform the services required under the QExA contracts is effectively a finding that those entities can compete against [AlohaCare] for an award of the QExA contract in issue. Accordingly, AlohaCare sustained a concrete injury because it faced increased competition from allegedly improperly licensed competitors in the QExA contract process, and the Decision held that AlohaCare's competitors were in fact properly licensed to offer the services required under those contracts. [28] In addition, AlohaCare's injury of increased competition by allegedly improperly licensed competitors for the award of the QExA contract is fairly traceable to the Decision, see E & J Lounge, 118 Hawai`i at 346 n. 35, 189 P.3d at 458 n. 35, because the Decision held that United and Ohana were properly licensed to perform the services required under the QExA contracts. [29] Finally, a favorable decision would provide AlohaCare relief from its injury. See E & J Lounge, 118 Hawai`i at 345 n. 35, 189 P.3d at 457 n. 35. If this court were to find that an HMO license is necessary to offer the services required under the QExA contracts, AlohaCare would be relieved of competition from United and Ohana in bidding for such contracts, unless United and Ohana obtained an HMO license. [30] Based on the foregoing, AlohaCare is a person aggrieved that has standing to appeal pursuant to HRS § 91-14(a). [31]