Williams v. Kleenco

629 P.2d 125, 2 Haw. App. 219, 1981 Haw. App. LEXIS 204
CourtHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 3, 1981
DocketNO. 7054
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 629 P.2d 125 (Williams v. Kleenco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams v. Kleenco, 629 P.2d 125, 2 Haw. App. 219, 1981 Haw. App. LEXIS 204 (hawapp 1981).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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 § 586-88, 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; .. .
*220 StanfordJ. 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.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bocalbos v. Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children
997 P.2d 42 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2000)
Bocalbos v. Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children
974 P.2d 1026 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)
Mitchell v. State, Department of Education
884 P.2d 368 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1994)
Oklahoma City Public Schools, Own Risk v. Strunk
1991 OK CIV APP 130 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
629 P.2d 125, 2 Haw. App. 219, 1981 Haw. App. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-kleenco-hawapp-1981.