§323D-47 Request for reconsideration. The state agency may provide by rules adopted in conformity with chapter 91 for a procedure by which any person may, for good cause shown, request in writing a public hearing before a reconsideration committee for purposes of reconsideration of the agency's decision. The reconsideration committee shall consist of the administrator of the state agency and the chairpersons of the statewide council, the review panel, the plan development committee of the statewide council, and the appropriate subarea health planning council. The administrator shall be the chairperson of the reconsideration committee. A request for a public hearing shall be deemed by the reconsideration committee to have shown good cause, if:
(1) It presents significant, relevant information not previously considered by the state agency;
(2) It demonstrates that there have been significant changes in factors or circumstances relied upon by the state agency in reaching its decision;
(3) It demonstrates that the state agency has materially failed to follow its adopted procedures in reaching its decision;
(4) It provides such other bases for a public hearing as the state agency determines constitutes good causes; or
(5) The decision of the administrator differs from the recommendation of the statewide council.
To be effective a request for such a hearing shall be received within ten working days of the state agency decision. A decision of the reconsideration committee following a public hearing under this section shall be considered a decision of the state agency for purposes of section 323D-44. [L 1977, c 178, pt of §2; am L 1987, c 270, §13; am L 1997, c 336, §11]
Case Notes
State health planning and development agency administrator was not disqualified from participating in the reconsideration of respondent's certificate of need pursuant to §11-1-25(a)(4), Hawaii administrative rules (HAR), which prohibits a hearings officer from hearing or deciding a contested case in which the hearings officer substantially participated in making the decision or action contested, given that in crafting this section, the legislature clearly intended that the administrator participate in both the initial decision on a certificate of need, and in any reconsideration of that decision. Further, because §11-1-25(a)(4), HAR, conflicts with that intent, it would be invalid if applied in the circumstances of this case, and thus was inapplicable. 130 H. 95, 306 P.3d 140 (2013).