Opinion ID: 2599393
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Bench trial on Defendants' cross-claim against the State

Text: On February 11, 2002, after a bench trial, the circuit court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, which, inter alia, dismissed Defendants' cross-claim against the State. The court entered the following relevant findings: 48. [The State]'s failure to consent to the settlement agreement was unreasonable and the direct result of a negligent review of Plaintiff Buscher's worker's compensation and liability claims by [the State]. Said review was below the standard of care required of an employer in determining whether to consent to employee[s'] personal injury settlement agreements. (Trial testimony of Richard K. Griffith, page 23, line 7-18.) 49. [The State]'s negligent claim handling, i.e.[,] its wrongful refusal to consent to Plaintiff Buscher's settlement agreement with Defendant Boning, was a legal cause of Plaintiff Buscher's emotional distress. The court additionally entered the following pertinent conclusions of law: 6. By choosing not to intervene in Plaintiff Buscher's suit against Defendant Boning or prosecute its own claim against them, [the State] chose to rely on Plaintiff Buscher's prosecution of her case against Defendant Boning as [the State]'s sole source of potential recovery of its worker's compensation lien/benefits. . . . . 10. [The State]'s October 15, 1999 letter Exhibit D-10 JWT is not consent as that term is used in [HRS § ]386-8 because it purports to reserve to the employer the right to sue the tortfeasor, whereas the consent under [HRS § ]386-8 means the employer looks only to the settlement proceeds for reimbursement of its worker's compensation lien claim and gives up its right to sue the tortfeasor. 11. The court finds that [the State] had a duty to act reasonably to Plaintiff Buscher in evaluating the settlement agreement in August 1999. 12. [The State] had a duty not to unreasonably withhold its consent from Plaintiff/Defendant Boning settlement agreement. 13. [The State] waived its immunity under [HRS chapter] 662, and none of the exceptions under [HRS § ]662-15(4) apply to protect the State. 14. Based upon [the State]'s conduct in handling the worker's compensation case, the reasons given for withholding consent, the [State]'s non-participation in the prosecution of its liens, the court concludes that the [State] unreasonably refused to consent to the proposed settlement agreement. The court ruled that, based on the State's unreasonable refusal to consent, Buscher had stated claims against the State for negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional harm. Nevertheless, the court ruled that Buscher has not specifically proven monetary damages nor has she proven any general damages as a result of the emotional distress[,] and dismissed Buscher's claims. Additionally, the court dismissed Defendants' claims against the State, reasoning that [w]ith respect to [the State]'s negligent claim handling and its impact on Defendant Boning, there is no duty which gives rise to a cause of action for `unreasonable failure to consent,' `negligent claim handling[,]' [ ] or `negligent failure to consent.'