NO. 29086
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
CRAIG A.
GOMES, Petitioner,
vs.
LABOR AND
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(AB 2007-462
(2-07-04707))
ORDER
(By: Moon,
C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Craig A. Gomes's petition for a writ
of mandamus and the papers in support, it appears
that the August 31, 2007 and September 14, 2007 decisions denying
petitioner's appeal of the May 31, 2007 medical
examination order to the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board
(LIRAB) -- even if concurred and signed by at least
two LIRAB members -- were not appealable to the intermediate court of
appeals inasmuch as the decisions did not finally
end petitioner's workers' compensation case and were not of the nature
that deferral of review pending entry of a
subsequent final decision would deprive petitioner of adequate relief. See HRS § 91-14 (1993
and Supp. 2007); Bocalbos
v. Kapiolani Medical Center, 89 Hawai‘i 436, 439, 974 P.2d 1026,
1029 (1999). The medical examination order was
affirmed by the labor director after a hearing, and over petitioner's
objections, by decision and order of October 19, 2007. The October 19,
2007 decision and order has been timely appealed by petitioner to the
LIRAB, which will hold a full
hearing de novo on the appeal. See HRS
§ 386-87(b) (1993). The LIRAB's decision in such appeal, if
adverse to
petitioner, will be appealable by petitioner to the intermediate court
of appeals. See HRS
§ 91-14 (1993 and Supp. 2007);
Tam v. Kaiser Permanente,
94 Hawai‘i 487, 494-95, 17 P.3d 219, 226-27 (2001). Therefore,
petitioner is not entitled to
mandamus relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai‘i
200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is
an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner
demonstrates a
clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of other means to
redress
adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. Such writs
are not intended to
serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures.); In Re Disciplinary Bd. of Hawaii
Supreme Court, 91 Hawai‘i 363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693 (1999)
(Mandamus relief is
available to compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an
individual
only if the individual's claim is clear and certain, the official's
duty is
ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no
other
remedy is available.). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu,
Hawai‘i, April 21, 2008.