FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 22-APR-2026 09:07 AM Dkt. 46 OP
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
---o0o---
STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FAAFETAI MAUAI-SILIFAIVA, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CR. NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)
APRIL 22, 2026
LEONARD, PRESIDING JUDGE, WADSWORTH AND MCCULLEN, JJ.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY MCCULLEN, J.
Defendant-Appellant Faafetai Mauai-Silifaiva appeals
from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's February 28, 2024
order granting Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaiʻi Department FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
of Human Services' (DHS) request for restitution (Restitution
Order) pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-646 (2014
and Supp. 2016). 1
DHS requested reimbursement for medical expenses paid
by AlohaCare to Queen's Medical Center. However, DHS cannot be
reimbursed under HRS § 706-646 for medical expenses it did not
pay. We vacate and remand.
I. BACKGROUND
In June 2023, Mauai-Silifaiva pled guilty to Assault
in the Second Degree, in violation of HRS § 707-711(1) (2014 &
Supp. 2016), among other charges, for an April 2021 incident
involving complaining witness Ronnie Dabalos.
Dabalos, a Medicaid recipient through DHS's Med-QUEST
program, received medical treatment for the assault at Queen's.
That medical treatment was paid for by AlohaCare, a health plan
that DHS contracts with to administer Medicaid coverage.
In September 2023, the circuit court entered its
Judgment of Conviction, DHS orally moved for restitution, and
the circuit court scheduled a restitution hearing for December
1 The Honorable Catherine H. Remigio presided.
Mauai-Silifaiva's premature notice of appeal from the circuit court's December 19, 2023 oral restitution order is considered filed immediately after the entry of the written February 28, 2024 Restitution Order by operation of Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)(2).
2 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
2023. DHS filed a memorandum in support of its motion in which
it requested restitution totaling $66,902.52 — the amount
AlohaCare paid for Dabalos's medical expenses.
The circuit court held a contested restitution hearing
on December 19, 2023. DHS called Gary Ojiri, a Healthcare
Financing Program Specialist, as a witness.
On direct, Ojiri testified that Med-QUEST pays
"capitation to the health plans" it contracts with "to provide
medical services" to Medicaid recipients. 2 Ojiri further
testified that DHS made medical assistance payments in the
amount of $66,902.52 for Dabalos's medical expenses.
On cross, however, Ojiri testified "AlohaCare actually
paid Queen's"; AlohaCare and DHS are two separate entities; and
DHS made capitation payments to AlohaCare but had not reimbursed
AlohaCare for any of the payments AlohaCare made for Dabalos's
medical expenses:
[Defense Counsel:] Okay. So – so has AlohaCare actually paid Queen's?
[Ojiri:] Yes.
[Defense Counsel:] And AlohaCare is -- AlohaCare is different from -- there are two separate entities, DHS and AlohaCare; right?
2 A capitation payment is "a payment the State makes periodically to a contractor on behalf of each beneficiary enrolled under a contract . . . . The State makes the payment regardless of whether the particular beneficiary receives services during the period covered by the payment." 42 C.F.R. § 438.2 (2024).
3 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
. . . .
[Defense Counsel:] And has DHS reimbursed AlohaCare for that?
[Ojiri:] No. What we do is we pay them capitation (indiscernible) capitation to the health plans.
[Defense Counsel:] So DHS has -- just to be crystal clear, DHS has not provided AlohaCare with any funds in conjunction with this case?
[Ojiri:] No. Just the capitation to that -- for the individual recipient.
Nevertheless, the circuit court found that DHS "met its burden
of proof by a preponderance of [the] evidence" and awarded DHS
$66,902.52 in restitution.
In February 2024, the circuit court entered its
Restitution Order, finding "DHS paid for [Dabalos]'s medical
care because [Dabalos] was a recipient of DHS medical assistance
benefits"; the "total amount of medical expenses paid for by DHS
was . . . $66,902.52"; and DHS "met its burden by a
preponderance of the evidence, showing that the restitution
amount is reasonable, verifiable, requested, and there is a
sufficient nexus that [Mauai-Silifaiva]'s assault offense caused
or contributed to [DHS's] costs."
4 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
The circuit court ordered Mauai-Silifaiva to pay
restitution to DHS in the amount of $66,902.52. Mauai-Silifaiva
appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Mauai-Silifaiva argues the circuit court
erred by awarding DHS restitution because "there was no evidence
that, in this case, DHS actually paid AlohaCare for the medical
treatment provided to Dabalos" and, as such, there was no
evidence that DHS's losses were reasonable and verified.
"The interpretation of a statute is a question of law.
Review is de novo, and the standard of review is right/wrong."
State v. Borge, 152 Hawaiʻi 458, 464, 526 P.3d 435, 441 (2023)
(quoting Kimura v. Kamalo, 106 Hawaiʻi 501, 507, 107 P.3d 430,
436 (2005)). "[T]he fundamental starting point for statutory
interpretation is the language of the statute itself." Id.
(quoting Ito v. Invs. Equity Life Holding Co., 135 Hawaiʻi 49,
61, 346 P.3d 118, 130 (2015)).
HRS § 706-646 permits "[a] governmental entity that
has reimbursed the victim for losses arising as a result of the
crime or paid for medical care provided to the victim as a
result of the crime" to recover its "reasonable and verified
5 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
losses" from the defendant. 3 HRS § 706-646(1)(c), (2) (emphases
added).
Commentary to HRS § 706-646 explains that, in 2012,
the state legislature made a "conforming amendment [to the
statute] to include medical assistance provided by the State as
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 22-APR-2026 09:07 AM Dkt. 46 OP
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
---o0o---
STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FAAFETAI MAUAI-SILIFAIVA, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CR. NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)
APRIL 22, 2026
LEONARD, PRESIDING JUDGE, WADSWORTH AND MCCULLEN, JJ.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY MCCULLEN, J.
Defendant-Appellant Faafetai Mauai-Silifaiva appeals
from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's February 28, 2024
order granting Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaiʻi Department FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
of Human Services' (DHS) request for restitution (Restitution
Order) pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-646 (2014
and Supp. 2016). 1
DHS requested reimbursement for medical expenses paid
by AlohaCare to Queen's Medical Center. However, DHS cannot be
reimbursed under HRS § 706-646 for medical expenses it did not
pay. We vacate and remand.
I. BACKGROUND
In June 2023, Mauai-Silifaiva pled guilty to Assault
in the Second Degree, in violation of HRS § 707-711(1) (2014 &
Supp. 2016), among other charges, for an April 2021 incident
involving complaining witness Ronnie Dabalos.
Dabalos, a Medicaid recipient through DHS's Med-QUEST
program, received medical treatment for the assault at Queen's.
That medical treatment was paid for by AlohaCare, a health plan
that DHS contracts with to administer Medicaid coverage.
In September 2023, the circuit court entered its
Judgment of Conviction, DHS orally moved for restitution, and
the circuit court scheduled a restitution hearing for December
1 The Honorable Catherine H. Remigio presided.
Mauai-Silifaiva's premature notice of appeal from the circuit court's December 19, 2023 oral restitution order is considered filed immediately after the entry of the written February 28, 2024 Restitution Order by operation of Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)(2).
2 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
2023. DHS filed a memorandum in support of its motion in which
it requested restitution totaling $66,902.52 — the amount
AlohaCare paid for Dabalos's medical expenses.
The circuit court held a contested restitution hearing
on December 19, 2023. DHS called Gary Ojiri, a Healthcare
Financing Program Specialist, as a witness.
On direct, Ojiri testified that Med-QUEST pays
"capitation to the health plans" it contracts with "to provide
medical services" to Medicaid recipients. 2 Ojiri further
testified that DHS made medical assistance payments in the
amount of $66,902.52 for Dabalos's medical expenses.
On cross, however, Ojiri testified "AlohaCare actually
paid Queen's"; AlohaCare and DHS are two separate entities; and
DHS made capitation payments to AlohaCare but had not reimbursed
AlohaCare for any of the payments AlohaCare made for Dabalos's
medical expenses:
[Defense Counsel:] Okay. So – so has AlohaCare actually paid Queen's?
[Ojiri:] Yes.
[Defense Counsel:] And AlohaCare is -- AlohaCare is different from -- there are two separate entities, DHS and AlohaCare; right?
2 A capitation payment is "a payment the State makes periodically to a contractor on behalf of each beneficiary enrolled under a contract . . . . The State makes the payment regardless of whether the particular beneficiary receives services during the period covered by the payment." 42 C.F.R. § 438.2 (2024).
3 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
. . . .
[Defense Counsel:] And has DHS reimbursed AlohaCare for that?
[Ojiri:] No. What we do is we pay them capitation (indiscernible) capitation to the health plans.
[Defense Counsel:] So DHS has -- just to be crystal clear, DHS has not provided AlohaCare with any funds in conjunction with this case?
[Ojiri:] No. Just the capitation to that -- for the individual recipient.
Nevertheless, the circuit court found that DHS "met its burden
of proof by a preponderance of [the] evidence" and awarded DHS
$66,902.52 in restitution.
In February 2024, the circuit court entered its
Restitution Order, finding "DHS paid for [Dabalos]'s medical
care because [Dabalos] was a recipient of DHS medical assistance
benefits"; the "total amount of medical expenses paid for by DHS
was . . . $66,902.52"; and DHS "met its burden by a
preponderance of the evidence, showing that the restitution
amount is reasonable, verifiable, requested, and there is a
sufficient nexus that [Mauai-Silifaiva]'s assault offense caused
or contributed to [DHS's] costs."
4 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
The circuit court ordered Mauai-Silifaiva to pay
restitution to DHS in the amount of $66,902.52. Mauai-Silifaiva
appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Mauai-Silifaiva argues the circuit court
erred by awarding DHS restitution because "there was no evidence
that, in this case, DHS actually paid AlohaCare for the medical
treatment provided to Dabalos" and, as such, there was no
evidence that DHS's losses were reasonable and verified.
"The interpretation of a statute is a question of law.
Review is de novo, and the standard of review is right/wrong."
State v. Borge, 152 Hawaiʻi 458, 464, 526 P.3d 435, 441 (2023)
(quoting Kimura v. Kamalo, 106 Hawaiʻi 501, 507, 107 P.3d 430,
436 (2005)). "[T]he fundamental starting point for statutory
interpretation is the language of the statute itself." Id.
(quoting Ito v. Invs. Equity Life Holding Co., 135 Hawaiʻi 49,
61, 346 P.3d 118, 130 (2015)).
HRS § 706-646 permits "[a] governmental entity that
has reimbursed the victim for losses arising as a result of the
crime or paid for medical care provided to the victim as a
result of the crime" to recover its "reasonable and verified
5 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
losses" from the defendant. 3 HRS § 706-646(1)(c), (2) (emphases
added).
Commentary to HRS § 706-646 explains that, in 2012,
the state legislature made a "conforming amendment [to the
statute] to include medical assistance provided by the State as
3 HRS § 706-646, "Victim restitution," provides in relevant part:
(1) As used in this section, "victim" includes any of the following:
(a) The direct victim of a crime including a business entity, trust, or governmental entity;
(c) A governmental entity that has reimbursed the victim for losses arising as a result of the crime or paid for medical care provided to the victim as a result of the crime. . . .
(2) The court shall order the defendant to make restitution for reasonable and verified losses suffered by the victim or victims as a result of the defendant's offense when requested by the victim. . . .
(3) . . . . Restitution shall be a dollar amount that is sufficient to reimburse any victim fully for losses, including but not limited to:
(b) Medical expenses, which shall include mental health treatment, counseling, and therapy;
(5) The restitution ordered shall not affect the right of a victim to recover under section 351-33 or in any manner provided by law; provided that any amount of restitution actually recovered by the victim under this section shall be deducted from any award under section 351- 33.
(Formatting altered and emphases added.)
6 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
an expense for which restitution may be ordered to conform with
amendments made to other sections in the [HRS] by Act 211." HRS
§ 706-646 cmt.
Importantly, these amendments include an amendment to
HRS Chapter 346, which governs DHS. HRS § 706-646 cmt., 2012
Haw. Sess. Laws Act 211, § 4 at 755.
Specifically, the state legislature amended HRS § 346-
37(g) (2015) by adding the process by which DHS may seek
restitution in criminal proceedings for "payments made by the
department":
When restitution is sought in a criminal proceeding from a third person who has caused injury to a recipient of medical assistance, a written notice of lien and an itemized list of payments made by the department that identifies the provider of services, the dates of services, the amounts billed and paid, and the dates of payments, shall be provided to the court and to the person against whom restitution is sought. Absent a good faith basis contesting the amount or validity of a specific line item charge or charges in the lien, the entire lien amount shall be presumed valid by the court in determining the amount of restitution pursuant to section 706-646.
(Emphases added.) See also 2012 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 211, § 4 at
755.
When HRS § 706-646(1)(c) is read together with the
relevant portion of HRS § 346-37(g), it is clear that, in
seeking reimbursement in criminal cases, DHS must have either
"reimbursed the victim for losses arising as a result of the
7 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
result of the crime," and must have provided "an itemized list
of payments made by the department . . . to the court and the
person against whom restitution is sought." HRS §§ 346-37(g),
706-646(1)(c) (emphases added).
Here, DHS did not offer any evidence that it made any
payments beyond the capitation payments. And the capitation
payments would have been paid "regardless of whether [Dabalos]
receive[d] services during the period covered by the payment"
and were not a result of Mauai-Silifaiva's crimes. See 42
C.F.R. § 438.2 (2024).
Relying on HRS § 431L-2 (2019), DHS argues the Hawaiʻi
Insurance Code "explicitly assigns the right to third party
payments to the State where DHS has made payments for health
care items or services." HRS § 431L-2 provides:
To the extent that payment has been made under the state plan for medical assistance for health care items or services furnished to an individual in any case where another party has a legal liability to make payment for such assistance, the State is considered to have acquired the rights of the individual to payment by the other party for those health care items or services.
(Emphasis added.) As discussed above, under the circumstances
of this case, Mauai-Silifaiva has no legal liability under HRS
§ 706-646 to reimburse DHS for Dabalos's medical expenses paid
by AlohaCare to Queen's. See HRS §§ 346-37(g), 706-646(1)(c).
8 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Accordingly, the circuit court erred in ordering
Mauai-Silifaiva to pay restitution under HRS § 706-646 to DHS
for Dabalos's medical expenses paid by AlohaCare to Queen's.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we vacate the circuit court's
February 28, 2024 Restitution Order and remand this case for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Walter J. Rodby, /s/ Katherine G. Leonard for Defendant-Appellant. Presiding Judge
Dean A. Soma, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Jennifer H. Crum, Associate Judge Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge