Opinion ID: 1213834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: First, the majority states:

Text: [W]here evidence of workers' compensation benefits is relevant, that is, where some other basis for its admission exists, such as the credibility of witnesses, the trial court must exercise its discretion under Hawai`i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 403 (1985) to determine whether to admit such evidence[, such as the amount of workers' compensation paid by the employer.] Majority opinion at 18, 897 P.2d at 945 (footnote omitted). In other words, because the specific amount of workers' compensation paid by the employer may become relevant in third party actions, [3] the majority asserts that trial judges may admit such evidence when such relevant situations develop pursuant to HRE Rule 403. However, HRE Rule 402 (1985) provides in relevant part: [a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States and the State of [Hawai`i], by statute, by these rules, or by other rules adopted by the supreme court. (Emphases added.) See Kealoha v. County of Hawaii, 74 Haw. 308, 315, 844 P.2d 670, 674 (1993) (HRE 402 states unequivocally that, subject only to certain explicit exceptions, `all relevant evidence is admissible[.]'). HRS § 386-8 clearly provides such an exception. As discussed supra, HRS § 386-8 (1985) provides, in relevant part, that the amount of compensation paid by the employer... shall not be admissible in evidence in any action brought to recover damages. (Emphasis added). It goes without saying that, in HRS § 386-8, the legislature was referring to relevant evidence. Thus, in enacting this statute, the legislature weighed the danger of prejudicing the jury against the probative value of relevant evidence of workers' compensation benefits paid by the employer. As evidenced by the plain language of HRS § 386-8, the legislature made the judgment call that the likely misuse by the jury substantially outweighs the possible probative value of such evidence in third party actions. Accordingly, because the legislature unequivocally intended to exclude the amount of workers' compensation benefits paid by the employer in third party actions, I would hold that trial courts generally have no discretion to admit such evidence pursuant to HRE Rule 403.