In re: F.T., by and through Aloha Nursing Rehab Centre

154 Haw. 110

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 19, 2024
• Docket: CAAP-18-0000677
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 19-APR-2024 08:06 AM Dkt. 65 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

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

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1CC171002012)

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 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER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.T.'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.T., 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.T." 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 minor or incapacitated, someone acting

responsibly for the applicant." However, HAR § 17-1711.1-9

covers from whom DHS can accept an application, not the

appellate process.

Thus, Aloha Nursing failed to show it had standing to

appeal pursuant to HRS § 346-12.

3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(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

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 this case, the hearings officer found

DHS terminated F.T.'s Medicaid benefits in December 2012 due to

4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

excess resources; DHS denied F.T.'s June 2013 application for

assistance due to excess resources; and F.T. "had a legal

guardian from January 29, 2013 to June 29, 2014" when she passed

away. As F.T. had a legal guardian from January 2013 (the month

after DHS terminated Medicaid benefits) until she died, Aloha

Nursing did not show F.T. was unable to protect her own

interests. 2

(3) Finally, Aloha Nursing contends the circuit court

erred in failing to address the hearings officer's refusal of

Aloha Nursing's cross-examination of DHS's witness about the

notice to terminate F.T.'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, Aloha Nursing attempted to cross-examine

DHS's witness about the termination of benefits notice, 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 limited

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

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, 312 P.3d at 1220 (noting all three criteria must be met).

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

appellate court's mandate"). As such, the circuit court not

addressing this issue is not reversible error.

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

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

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, April 19, 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.