In re: Request for Payment of, Lawinski, M.D. v. Saiki

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
26-FEB-2026
08:05 AM
Dkt. 66 ODMR

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

In the Matter of the Request for Payment of,
CHRISTOPHER LAWINSKI, M.D., as Provider for Sean Tilton,
Appellant-Provider-Appellant,
vs.
SCOTT SAIKI, INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
CONSUMER AFFAIRS, STATE OF HAWAI‘I,
Appellee-Appellee,
and
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
Appellee-Respondent-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 3CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Leonard and McCullen, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Appellant-Provider-Appellant
Christopher Lawinski, M.D.'s (Dr. Lawinski) February 22, 2026
"Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal[;] Motion for
Reconsideration of Summary Disposition Order" (Motion) from the
Intermediate Court of Appeals Summary Disposition Order filed on
February 13, 2026, pursuant to Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Procedure (HRAP) Rule 40, and the record and files herein, it
appears that:
(1) HRAP Rule 40(b) provides that a motion for
reconsideration "shall state with particularity the points of
law or fact that the moving party contends the court has
overlooked or misapprehended[.]"
(2) Dr. Lawinski does not provide argument regarding
"the points of law or fact . . . the court has overlooked or
misapprehended[.]" HRAP Rule 40(b). Instead, Dr. Lawinski
requests supplementation of the record1 with a new 2023 document
not part of the record on appeal, and presents argument based on
that 2023 document. We do not consider this argument, and the
request for such supplementation is denied. See State v. Moses,
102 Hawaiʻi 449, 455, 77 P.3d 940, 946 (2003) (holding that an
appellate court "cannot consider evidence outside the record:
'every appeal shall be taken on the record and no new evidence
shall be introduced in the [appellate] court'" (brackets
omitted) (quoting Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-2));2
Alford v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 109 Hawaiʻi 14, 25 n.18, 122
P.3d 809, 820 n.18 (2005) (disregarding material not part of the
record on appeal as a violation of HRAP Rule 10).

1 HRAP Rule 10(e), entitled "Correction or modification of the
record," provides that "[i]f anything material to any party is omitted from
the record by error or accident or is misstated therein, corrections or
modifications may be" made. (Emphasis added.) Dr. Lawinski is not seeking
to supplement the record because of an "error or accident," but seeks to
admit an entirely new document. Id.
2 HRS § 641-2 (2016) pertinently provides that: "Every appeal shall
be taken on the record, and no new evidence shall be introduced in the
supreme court."

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, February 26, 2026.

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Associate Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge

3