From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Kleenco

Hawaii Court of Appeals
Jun 3, 1981
2 Haw. App. 219 (Haw. Ct. App. 1981)

Summary

In Williams v. Kleenco, 2 Haw. App. 219, 629 P.2d 125 (1981), the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) held that, "[w]here the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board remands a matter to the director of [workers'] compensation for a determination of the amount of the award, the decision and order is not final and is therefore not appealable."

Summary of this case from Mitchell v. State, Dept. of Educ

Opinion

NO. 7054

June 3, 1981

APPEAL FROM LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD

HAYASHI, C.J., PADGETT AND BURNS, JJ.

Stanford J. Manuia (Robert C. Kessner on the briefs, Woo, Kessner Duca of counsel) for appellants.

Raymond E. Engle (John P. Moon on the brief, Hoddick Reinwald O'Connor Marrack of counsel) for appellees.


This is an appeal from a decision and order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board which affirmed a ruling by the director that the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act. The director had not determined the amount of compensation and the appeals board, in its order, sent the case back to the director for a determination of that amount.

Appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board are allowed under § 386-88, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS). However, they are governed by the provisions of the Hawaii Administrative Procedures Act and particularly by § 91-14(a) thereof. DeFries v. Association of Apartment Owners, 999 Wilder, 57 Haw. 296, 555 P.2d 855 (1976). That statute provides in part:

Any person aggrieved by a final decision and order in a contested case or by a preliminary ruling of the nature that deferral of review pending entry of a subsequent final decision would deprive appellant of adequate relief is entitled to judicial review thereof under this chapter; . . .

Clearly, deferral of review pending entry of a subsequent final decision would not, in this case, deprive appellant of adequate relief and clearly also, the decision below was not a final order. As was said in Gealon v. Keala, 60 Haw. 513, 520, 591 P.2d 621, 626 (1979):

"Final order" means an order ending the proceedings, leaving nothing further to be accomplished. Consequently, an order is not final if the rights of a party involved remain undetermined or if the matter is retained for further action.

The decision and order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board was not a final order and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.


Summaries of

Williams v. Kleenco

Hawaii Court of Appeals
Jun 3, 1981
2 Haw. App. 219 (Haw. Ct. App. 1981)

In Williams v. Kleenco, 2 Haw. App. 219, 629 P.2d 125 (1981), the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) held that, "[w]here the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board remands a matter to the director of [workers'] compensation for a determination of the amount of the award, the decision and order is not final and is therefore not appealable."

Summary of this case from Mitchell v. State, Dept. of Educ

dismissing an appeal from a LIRAB decision and order remanding the matter to the director of workmen's compensation with instructions to determine the amount of the award, because such a decision and order is not final and appealable.

Summary of this case from Pickett v. State

stating that "[a]ppeals from [the Board] are allowed under [HRS §] 386-88 . . . [h]owever, they are governed by the provisions of the Hawaii Administrative Procedures Act and particularly by [HRS §] 91-14"

Summary of this case from Bocalbos v. Kapiolani Medical Center

In Williams, as here, there was an intra-agency determination of a right to compensation, with the reviewing Appeals Board ordering the case returned to the Director of Workers' Compensation for a determination of the amount.

Summary of this case from Matter of Death of Strunk
Case details for

Williams v. Kleenco

Case Details

Full title:HAROLD WILLIAMS, Claimant-Appellee, v. KLEENCO, Employer-Appellant, and…

Court:Hawaii Court of Appeals

Date published: Jun 3, 1981

Citations

2 Haw. App. 219 (Haw. Ct. App. 1981)
629 P.2d 125

Citing Cases

Pickett v. State

The supreme court concluded that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal, and…

Mitchell v. State, Dept. of Educ

The DOE maintains that the instant case lacks the requisite degree of finality because Mitchell's…