 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Munoz v. Chandler2/21/2002
e Muñozes filed a Notice of Appeal to the Hawaii Supreme Court. However, on May 25, 2000, the supreme court dismissed their appeal on grounds that an HRCP Rule 58 and Rule 72(k) judgment had not yet been entered and, therefore, no appellate jurisdiction existed. On remand, the circuit court entered a "Judgment in a Civil Case" on May 10, 2000, and the Muñozes filed a new "Notice of Appeal" on May 31, 2000.
DISCUSSION
A. Whether the Circuit Court Had Appellate Jurisdiction to Entertain the Muñozes' Appeal
DHS initially contends that the Muñozes' appeal to the circuit court was untimely and, therefore, the circuit court, and, in turn, this court, lacks appellate jurisdiction to decide this case. DHS points out that although the AA's final decision was issued on October 30, 1998, the Muñozes did not file their "Notice of Appeal" in the circuit court until February 9, 1999.
The time requirement for appealing a final decision of an administrative agency is set forth in HRS § 91-14(b) (1993), which provides:
Except as otherwise provided herein, proceedings for review shall be instituted in the circuit court within thirty days after the preliminary ruling or within thirty days after service of the certified copy of the final decision and order of the agency pursuant to rule of court except where a statute provides for a direct appeal to the supreme court, which appeal shall be subject to chapter 602, and in such cases the appeal shall be in like manner as an appeal from the circuit court to the supreme court, including payment of the fee prescribed by section 607-5 for filing the notice of appeal (except in cases appealed under sections 11-51 and 40-91). The court in its discretion may permit other interested persons to intervene.
The Hawaii Supreme Court has held, however, that requirements regarding the form of a notice of appeal are not jurisdictional, City & County v. Midkiff, 57 Haw. 273, 275-76, 554 P.2d 233, 235 (1976), and, therefore, deficiencies in the form of a notice of appeal "should not result in loss of the appeal as long as the intent to appeal from a specific judgment can be fairly inferred from the notice and the appellee is not misled by the mistake." Id. (quoting 9 Moore's Federal Practice 203.18 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
In this case, the record reflects that the Muñozes, pro se, filed a document, entitled "Agency Appeal," in the circuit court on November 24, 1998, within the thirty-day period prescribed by HRS § 91-14. Although not titled "Notice of Appeal[,]" the document fairly communicated the Muñozes' intent to appeal the AA's decision. Moreover, the record contains no indication that the document misled or prejudiced DHS in any way.
Therefore, we conclude that the circuit court had jurisdiction over the Muñozes' appeal from the AA's decision.
B. The Propriety of the Telephone Hearing
The Muñozes maintain that the circuit court erred in entering Conclusion of Law No. 1, which stated as follows:
There is no basis for requiring the DHS hearings officer to be physically present in the same room with [the Muñozes] during their fair hearing. Nor have [the Muñozes] alleged any prejudice resulting from the DHS hearings officer not being physically present in the same room with them during their fair hearing.
According to the Muñozes, "there appears to be due process violations involved in Appellants being forced to have their fair hearing conducted through a video-conferencing, and not with a hearing officer present at the hearing, which is required by their very rules! This matter is further augmented by the DHS Appea
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|