84 Hawai'i 390, Survivors of Iida v. Oriental Imports, Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 March 1997 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 17948,18253,s. 17948 |
| Citation | 935 P.2d 105,84 Hawaii 390 |
| Parties | 84 Hawai'i 390 SURVIVORS OF Amy IIDA, Deceased, Claimant-Appellant, v. ORIENTAL IMPORTS, INC., dba Ala Moana Gifts, Employer-Appellee, and Hawaiian Insurance Group, Insurance Carrier-Appellee, and Special Compensation Fund, Appellee. SURVIVORS OF Amy IIDA, Deceased, Claimant-Appellee, v. ORIENTAL IMPORTS, INC., dba Ala Moana Gifts, Employer-Appellant, and Hawaiian Insurance Group, Insurance Carrier-Appellant, and Special Compensation Fund, Appellee. |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. An employee suffered a fatal work-related injury. Her dependent children, a son and a daughter, were later awarded workers' compensation benefits by the Director of Labor and Industrial Relations because they were both dependent children and full-time college students. The relevant portion of the workers' compensation statute allows dependent children to receive benefits as long as they are full-time students at a college. The employer subsequently appealed to the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board.
2. On appeal, the employer first argued that the employee's injury was not work-related and therefore not compensable. Nearly two years later, the employer conceded the compensability issue and then argued that the son had improperly received benefits because he had withdrawn from a number of classes or failed to enroll in the required number of classes to be considered a full-time student during a number of semesters. In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board disagreed with the employer, ruling that the son was a qualified dependent, but also concluding that part-time students are not entitled to compensation and that the son was overcompensated during his part-time status.
3. On appeal to this court, the son and daughter argued that the son was within the class of persons entitled to be covered by the statute, despite his subsequent withdrawals, because he either actually enrolled or made a good faith effort to enroll as a full-time student at the beginning of each semester.
4. The son and daughter filed a request for attorney's fees and costs with the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board. The employer later filed its own request for attorney's fees. The Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board issued an order approving the son and daughter's request for attorney's fees and costs but denying the employer's request for attorney's fees. The employer then filed a timely notice of appeal.
5. On appeal from the attorney's fees and costs order, the employer argues that: (1) the son and daughter's request for attorney's fees and costs was untimely; (2) the employer was not the losing party on the withdrawn compensability issue; and (3) the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board should have granted the employer's request for attorney's fees.
6. This court issued an order consolidating the son and daughter's appeal of the reimbursement issue with the employer's appeal of the attorney's fees and costs issue.
7. This decision holds that: (1) a child in the son and daughter's category must be unmarried, under twenty-two, and a full-time student to receive dependent benefits; (2) a full-time student is an individual who is considered a regular full-time student by the educational institution at which the individual is enrolled or registered; (3) the son was not entitled to benefits during his periods of part-time enrollment; (4) the factual findings in findings of fact numbers seven and ten are not clearly erroneous; (5) the legal conclusions in findings of fact numbers seven and ten are wrong because they do not correctly determine the son's periods of ineligibility; (6) conclusion of law number three is inadequate because it fails, in its calculation of benefits, to account for all possible periods of full-time status; (7) the language in Hawai'i Administrative Rules § 12-43-37 and Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 386-78 regarding the filing of a request for attorney's fees and costs after settlement refer to compromises or settlements that dispose of an entire case, not merely portions of a case; (8) the son and daughter's request for attorney's fees and costs was timely; (9) an employer who appeals a decision of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations or the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board and later concedes is the losing party on appeal under HRS § 386-93(b); (10) the employer was the losing party on the conceded issue; and (11) the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board properly denied the employer's request for attorney's fees.
8. Accordingly, we vacate the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board's order on the issue of dependent benefits and remand with instructions to determine the precise dates of the son's part-time status and then determine the appropriate amounts of overcompensation owed to the employer; and we affirm the order granting attorney's fees and costs to the son and daughter but denying attorney's fees to the employer.
Herbert R. Takahashi, Stanford H. Masui, Danny J. Vasconcellos, and Rebecca L. Covert (Takahashi, Masui, Vasconcellos, of counsel), on the briefs, Honolulu, for claimant-appellant in No. 17948 and for claimant-appellee in No. 18253.
Wayne W.H. Wong (Suemori & Wong, of counsel), on the briefs, Honolulu, for employer/insurance carrier-appellee in No. 17948 and for employer/insurance carrier-appellant in No. 18253.
Frances E.H. Lum and Herbert B.K. Lau, Deputy Attorneys General, State of Hawai'i, Honolulu, for appellee Special Compensation Fund (no brief filed).
Before BURNS, C.J., and ACOBA and KIRIMITSU, JJ.
In this consolidated workers' compensation and attorney's fee and costs case, Claimant-Appellant Survivors of Amy Iida (Steven and Lynda) appeal from the January 13, 1994 order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (LIRAB) ordering repayment of dependant benefits; 1 and Employer-Appellant Oriental Imports, Inc. (doing business as Ala Moana Gifts) and Insurance Carrier-Appellant Hawaiian Insurance Group (collectively, Ala Moana Gifts) appeal from the May 4, 1994 order of the LIRAB awarding attorney's fees and costs to Steven and Lynda but denying attorney's fees to Ala Moana Gifts. We vacate the LIRAB's January 13, 1994 order and remand for action consistent with this opinion, but affirm the May 4, 1994 order.
In 1989, Amy Iida (Amy) was employed by Ala Moana Gifts. On April 21, 1989, she suffered a dissecting aortic aneurysm. 2 A few weeks later, she succumbed to complications resulting from the aneurysm. Amy died on May 11, 1989. She was survived by two children, Steven and Lynda Iida, who were both full-time college students at the time of her death.
On May 23, 1989, Steven and Lynda filed a claim for dependent benefits, which was opposed on behalf of Ala Moana Gifts by the Insurance Carrier-Appellee Hawaiian Insurance Group (HIG). Appellee-The Special Compensation Fund 3 later joined HIG in its opposition to Steven and Lynda's claim. Following procedural maneuvering by both sides, a hearing was held on Steven and Lynda's claim. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Director of Labor and Industrial Relations (the Director) found, among other things, that: (1) Amy's death was work-related; (2) Amy's employer was liable for Amy's medical, funeral, and burial expenses; (3) Ala Moana Gifts was to pay Steven and Lynda weekly compensation benefits of $358.00 from May 12, 1989 through June 24, 1990, for a total of $20,917.44, and, following Lynda's twenty-second birthday, pay Steven $214.80 per week from June 25, 1990 through November 28, 1991, for a total of $16,017.94; and (4) the request for Special Compensation Fund contribution was denied.
Ala Moana Gifts appealed the Director's decision. Ala Moana Gifts' initial primary contention before the LIRAB was that Amy's death was not work-related. It maintained this position on appeal until September 10, 1992, when it withdrew the issue of compensability. Following the concession of the compensability issue, the primary contention for Ala Moana Gifts became Steven's entitlement to dependent benefits. It argued that Steven had improperly received benefits because he had withdrawn from a number of classes or failed to enroll in the required number of classes to be considered a full-time student during a number of semesters. According to Ala Moana Gifts, Steven "was not entitled to benefits he received during the period from May 12, 1989 through November 28, 1991, as he failed to meet the definition of a dependent under [Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 386-42(a)(2) ] during the whole of that period." 4
Ala Moana Gifts presented evidence that, after his mother's death, Steven had either failed or withdrawn from a number of classes. In the years following Amy's death, Steven attended the University of Hawai'i at Manoa (UH), Hawaii Pacific University (HPU), and Kapiolani Community College (KCC). His transcripts revealed the following information about his scholastic career:
Semester Institution Enrolled Withdrawn Failed Received
Spring 89 UH 13 0 0 13
Summer 89 UH 3 0 0 3
Fall 89 UH 12 9 3 0
Spring 90 UH 13 0 13 0
Summer 90 HPU 6 0 0 6
Fall 90 HPU 12 6 0 6
Spring 91 KCC 6 3 3 0
In its January 13, 1994 findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision and order, the LIRAB disagreed with the argument that Steven was not entitled to any of the compensation that he had received. It did, however, determine that Steven was a part-time student for the Fall 1989, Fall 1990, and Spring 1991 semesters...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
90 Hawai'i 152, Amantiad v. Odum
...at 787 (quoting Florida Indus. Comm'n v. Schoenberg, 117 So.2d 538, 541 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1960)). Survivors of Iida v. Oriental Imports, Inc., 84 Hawai'i 390, 397, 935 P.2d 105, 112 (App.1997) (footnote omitted). Finally, this court has also stated "that 'statutes abrogating common law right......
-
Korsak v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group
...with the overall legislative design of the workers' compensation laws. As noted by the ICA in Survivors of Iida v. Oriental Imports, Inc., 84 Hawaii 390, 935 P.2d 105 (App.1997), this court has repeatedly emphasized the remedial nature of the workers' compensation [A large] number of cases ......
-
Lindinha v. Hilo Coast Processing Co.
...the compensation. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 707, in 1967 House Journal, at 749 (emphases added). In Survivors of Iida v. Oriental Imports, Inc., 84 Hawai'i 390, 405, 935 P.2d 105, 120 (App.1997), the ICA held that an issue which was appealed by the employer to the LIRAB but later withdrawn, res......
-
Home & Cmty. Servs. of Hawai‘i, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations
...Administrative AppealsThe "interpretation of a statute is a question of law reviewable de novo. " Survivors of Iida v. Oriental Imports, Inc., 84 Hawai‘i 390, 396, 935 P.2d 105, 111 (App.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Sato v. Tawata, 79 Hawai‘i 14, 17, 897 P.2d 941, 944 (......