Court Opinion

ID: 9964364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 19:03:38.547278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:20.928869
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                    Electronically Filed
                                                    Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                    CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                    29-APR-2024
                                                    08:17 AM
                                                    Dkt. 54 SO

                           NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                         OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

     In re F.W.H., by and through Aloha Nursing Rehab Centre

         APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                       (CASE NO. 1CC171002013)

                      SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
 (By:    Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)

            Appellant-Appellant Aloha Nursing Rehab Centre (Aloha

Nursing) appeals from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's 1

August 1, 2018 "Order Affirming Notice of Administrative Hearing

Decision Dated November 20, 2017" (August 1, 2018 Order) and

August 1, 2018 Judgment.

            On appeal, Aloha Nursing challenges the circuit

court's determination on standing and the hearings officer's

exclusion of evidence.

     1   The Honorable Keith K. Hiraoka presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

           Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve the

points of error as discussed below, and affirm.

           (1)   Aloha Nursing first contends the circuit court

erred in affirming Appellee-Appellee State of Hawai‘i, Department

of Human Services (DHS) hearings officer's denial of Aloha

Nursing's standing on F.W.H.'s behalf, arguing the circuit

court's construction of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 346-12

(2015) was too narrow.

           "On appeal, the issue of standing is reviewed de novo

under the right/wrong standard."         Abaya v. Mantell, 112 Hawai‘i

176, 180, 145 P.3d 719, 723 (2006).

           Under HRS § 346-12,

           [a]n applicant or recipient, deeming oneself aggrieved,
           shall be entitled to appeal to the director in the manner
           prescribed by department rules and shall be afforded
           reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing at which
           all of the evidence presented by the parties, to the extent
           allowed by chapter 91, shall be considered in a fair and
           impartial manner.

(Emphasis added.)    Applicant is defined as "the person for whose

use and benefit application for services or public assistance is

made" and recipient is defined as "the person for whose use and

benefit services are rendered or a grant of public assistance is

made."   HRS § 346-1 (2015).

                                     2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

          Here, Aloha Nursing has not shown it was the applicant

or recipient as defined by HRS § 346-1.   Moreover, the hearings

officer found "Aloha Nursing has not provided evidence that it

is an authorized representative of" F.W.H., and Aloha Nursing

did not challenge this finding.   See Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd.

of Water Supply, 97 Hawai‘i 450, 458, 40 P.3d 73, 81 (2002)

("Findings of fact . . . that are not challenged on appeal are

binding on the appellate court.").

          Aloha Nursing also relies on Hawai‘i Administrative

Rules (HAR) § 17-1711.1-9 (eff. 2013) for the proposition that

it "acted responsibly on behalf of F.W.H." and, thus, DHS was

required to accept an application and any documentation to

establish eligibility.   Aloha Nursing claims that it submitted a

"March 2012 request for an application (through [Scott Gardner &

Company]) and its September 25, 2013 letter to DHS asking for

Medicaid benefits from April 2012[.]"

          HAR § 17-1711.1-9 provides "[t]he department must

accept an application for medical assistance and any

documentation required to establish eligibility from an

applicant, an adult who is in the applicant's household or

family, an authorized representative, or if the applicant is a

                                  3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

minor or incapacitated, someone acting responsibly for the

applicant."

            The hearings officer made findings regarding DHS's

Med-QUEST Division Administrator, Judy Mohr Peterson's

(Peterson) June 17, 2016 response to Aloha Nursing.    Notably,

Peterson stated that on March 28, 2012, Loraine Alambatin

(Alambatin) of Scott Gardner & Company requested "a copy of

[F.W.H.'s] eligibility review, as well as a statement of his

income and assets, stating [F.W.H.'s power of attorney] had

passed away and Aloha Nursing was starting the guardianship

process."    Peterson further explained, "[h]owever, there was no

official documentation regarding guardianship proceedings taken

by Aloha Nursing, and the verbal statement was not sufficient."

Thus, "the department could not release information to her as

neither she nor Scott Gardner and Company were designated as

authorized representatives and had no legal authority for this

information."

            Peterson also stated, "there is no record of any

application being submitted until October 11, 2013, when the

Department received a faxed copy of an application completed by

Mr. Michael Orlas, of Scott Gardner and Company, nine months

                                  4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

after the guardianship hearing."        Aloha Nursing does not

challenge the hearing officer's findings.        See Okada Trucking

Co., 97 Hawai‘i at 458, 40 P.3d at 81.       There was no evidence the

March 2012 "request" and the September 25, 2013 "letter" were

applications DHS was required to accept.

          Thus, Aloha Nursing failed to show it had standing to

appeal pursuant to HRS § 346-12 or HAR § 17-1711.1-9.

          (2)   Aloha Nursing next contends the circuit court

erred in affirming the hearings officer's denial of Aloha

Nursing's third-party standing.

          "In the ordinary course, a litigant must assert his or

her own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest a claim to

relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties."

Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410 (1991).        Under the test for

third-party standing, litigants have a right to bring actions on

behalf of third parties if "three important criteria are" met:

          (1) the litigant has suffered an injury in fact, thus
          giving him or her a sufficiently concrete interest in the
          outcome of the issue in dispute, (2) the litigant has a
          close relationship to the third party, and (3) there is
          some hindrance to the third party's ability to protect his
          or her own interests.

In re AS, 130 Hawai‘i 486, 513, 312 P.3d 1193, 1220 (App. 2013)

(citing Powers, 499 U.S. at 410-11).        The supreme court has

noted "the legislature may limit standing to sue despite an

                                    5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

injury in fact where plaintiff asserts rights" arising from a

statute.   Akau v. Olohana Corp., 65 Haw. 383, 390, 652 P.2d

1130, 1135 (1982).

           Here, the legislature appears to have limited standing

by enacting HRS § 346-12.   But even if we were to consider Aloha

Nursing's argument, Aloha Nursing did not meet the test for

third-party standing.

           In March 2012, F.W.H.'s power of attorney passed away,

F.W.H.'s physician deemed him to be incapacitated, and Aloha

Nursing through Alambatin sent a note to inform DHS of these

events and that it "was starting the guardianship process."    In

July 2012, a petition for guardianship was filed, and in

February 2013, a guardian was appointed.   "Unfortunately,

[F.W.H.] had assets in California which delayed his receiving

Medicaid benefits," but he was later approved for Medicaid

assistance retroactive to July 1, 2013 until his death on

June 19, 2014.

           Since F.W.H. had a legal guardian from February 2013

until his death, and "the delay in restarting the benefits was

because [F.W.H.] had assets in California, not because [F.W.H.]

                                 6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

did not have an authorized representative," Aloha Nursing did

not show F.W.H. was unable to protect his own interests. 2

           (3)   Finally, Aloha Nursing contends the circuit court

erred in failing to address the hearings officer's error "in

preventing DHS's witness from testifying" about the notice to

terminate F.W.H.'s Medicaid benefits.

           The circuit court originally remanded this case for a

hearing on whether Aloha Nursing had standing.           However, at the

hearing on remand, DHS began asking its witness about exhibits

including information from F.W.H.'s file on direct examination

and the hearings officer cautioned DHS those questions would

open "the door . . . to a lot of cross-examination questions."

Aloha Nursing later attempted to cross-examine DHS's witness

about when DHS terminated F.W.H.'s benefits, DHS objected, and

the hearings officer sustained the objections.

           Thus, as Aloha Nursing's questions exceeded the scope

of remand, we cannot say sustaining the objections was error.

See generally, 2 Am. Jur. 2d Admin. Law § 550 (2024) (noting

"when the scope of remand [to an administrative agency] is

     2    As Aloha Nursing does not meet this prong of the test, we do not
analyze the other two prongs. See generally, In re AS, 130 Hawai‘i at 513-14,
312 P.3d at 1220-21 (noting each of the prongs must be satisfied).

                                      7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

limited . . . the lower tribunal is only authorized to carry out

the appellate court's mandate").

          Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court's

August 1, 2018 Order and August 1, 2018 Judgment.

          DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai‘i, April 29, 2024.

On the briefs:                         /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
                                       Acting Chief Judge
Thomas E. Bush,
for Appellant-Appellant.               /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
                                       Associate Judge
James W. Walther,
Lili A. Young,                         /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Deputy Attorneys General,              Associate Judge
for Appellee-Appellee.

                                   8