HRS 0671-0012 ANNOTATIONS

Tort and Insurance "Reform" in a Common Law Court. 14 UH L. Rev. 55.

Medical claim conciliation panel requirement is procedural rather than substantive, and does not apply to cases filed in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. 29 F. Supp. 2d 1174.

Claim was allowed to be heard because there was substantial compliance with procedural requirements. 69 H. 305, 741 P.2d 1280.

Where certain counts of plaintiff's complaint alleged errors or omissions in professional practice by a health care provider, thus falling under the definition of "medical tort" under §671-1(2), court properly ruled plaintiff could not proceed with those counts of suit without first submitting them to medical claims conciliation panel as required by §671-16 and this section. 89 H. 188, 970 P.2d 496.

Where plaintiff chose to sidestep requirements of §671-16 and this section by filing suit before seeking resolution of claims by a medical claim conciliation panel as required under these statutes, court properly dismissed complaint. 89 H. 188, 970 P.2d 496.

Where medical claims conciliation panel decision was filed after commencement of plaintiffs' suit in trial court, plaintiffs failed to comply with the requirements of this section; thus, trial court did not err in concluding it had no subject matter jurisdiction. 90 H. 425, 978 P.2d 863.

Where defendants city, city department of health, and city director of health fit within the definition of "health care facility" under §323D-2 and "health care provider" under §671-1, and as to them, each of the eight counts alleged a "medical tort", plaintiff was required to submit the eight counts against them to the medical claim conciliation panel pursuant to this section as a precondition to filing suit. 93 H. 490 (App.), 6 P.3d 362.