Opinion ID: 2595567
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Circuit Court's Judicial Review Of The ERS Board's Decision

Text: On September 15, 1999, Helen filed a notice of appeal to the circuit court of the first circuit pursuant to HRS § 91-14 (1993). [7] In her opening brief, Helen asserted that the ERS Board erred in entering the following COLs and FOFs: (1) COL No. 8, which stated that normal retirement allowance is authorized by statute and available to Class C non-contributory members, Helen contending that the [s]tatutes relating to Class C non-contributory members allow[ed] distribution on only one of three options designated in [HRS] § 88-283(a); (2) COL No. 9, which stated that [t]he statute regarding retirement of Class C employees and ERS'[s] method of administering the Class C employees' retirement [was] not vague, ambiguous, or confusing[,] Helen arguing that [t]he manner in which the ERS [Board] . . . use[d] the term `normal' in reference to the `type' of retirement ( i.e., `normal,' `early,' or `disability') . . . and also for the mode of distribution of retirement benefits ( i.e., `normal,' `Option A,' `Option B,' and `Option C') was vague, ambiguous, and confusing; and (3) FOF No. 9, which stated that Katsumi did not notify the ERS or change his retirement plan ( i.e., mode of allowance and retirement date) after being diagnosed with cancer in March 1994, Helen maintaining that the ERS Board offered no evidence that [Katsumi] had not communicated to them . . . [his diagnosis, and] the only evidence offered on this topic was the Affidavit of Arlene Kamakana, . . . in which. . . Kamakana stated that she advised [Katsumi's employer at Kupapa Elementary School] and [a representative of the ERS] of [Katsumi's] anticipated passing. [8] On January 31, 2000, the circuit court heard oral argument from both parties. On February 7, 2000, the circuit court issued a minute order finding for Helen and reversing the ERS Board's final decision, as follows: AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE FILES HEREIN, THE COURT HEREBY REVERSES THE DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT AND FINDS THAT: 1) THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE IS VAGUE, ARBITRARY AND CONFUSING, 2) THE [ERS BOARD'S] INTERPRETATION IS STRETCHED,. . . AND 4) NO ATTEMPTS WERE MADE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS DUE TO [KATSUMI'S] FEAR OF HEIGHTS.[ [9] ] On April 26, 2000, Helen filed a motion for clarification of the minute order, seeking specification of the relief that the circuit court had granted to her. On July 6, 2000, the circuit court entered FOFs and an order reversing the decision of the ERS Board and awarding relief to Helen: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Statutes relating to the retirement benefits of Class C Employees of the State of Hawaii (H.R.S. § 88-251, et seq. ) are vague, ambiguous and confusing. 2. The [ERS Board's] interpretation of the statutes relating to the retirement benefits of Class C Employees of the State of Hawaii is stretched and the offering of a normal distribution of retirement benefits is in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency. 3. The [ERS Board] did not make any attempts to provide reasonable accommodations for [Katsumi's] disabilities in counseling him with respect to his retirement options. . . . . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: 1. The Final Decision of the [ERS Board] is hereby reversed. 2. The relief requested by . . . [Helen] in [her] Opening Brief, filed herein on November 19, 1999, shall hereby be granted. The specific grant of relief by this Order is the authorization for . . . Helen . . . to revise . . . Katsumi['s] . . . election of a mode of distribution of retirement allowance to one of the three statutorily authorized methods described in [HRS] § 88-283. Such revision of the election of a method of distribution shall be made within 60 days from the date of entry of this Order and shall apply retroactively to the date of . . . Katsumi['s]. . . retirement, April 1, 1994. Benefits shall be calculated in the following manner: 1) From April 1, 1994 to the date of . . . Katsumi['s] death, the benefits payable shall be based upon [Katsumi's] entitlement as a Class C retirant; 2) After the date of [Katsumi's] death, benefits shall be paid to [Helen] as the beneficiary under the method of distribution selected until [Helen's] rights to such benefits shall terminate as provided under such election. The payment of such benefits shall be made forthwith. (Emphases in original.) On July 28, 2000, the circuit court entered final judgment in favor of Helen and against the ERS Board. On July 31, 2000, the ERS Board timely filed a notice of appeal.