Wilson v. Pali Momi Medical Center

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
30-APR-2026
08:33 AM
Dkt. 96 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

LINDA WILSON, on behalf of the Estate of TITUS WILSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PALI MOMI MEDICAL CENTER,
a Hawaii Domestic Nonprofit Corporation;
THOMAS W. POLLARD, D.O.; NATALIE KITAMURA, APRN,
Defendants-Appellees, and
DOES 1-10, Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CC161001725)

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

Plaintiff-Appellant Linda Wilson, on behalf of the

Estate of Titus Wilson (together, the Estate), appeals from the
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Circuit Court of the First Circuit's July 17, 2023 Final

Judgment and various underlying orders. 1

On appeal, the Estate raises four points of error,

challenging the circuit court's (1) partial grant of its motion

to compel; (2) denial of its request for a Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil

Procedure (HRCP) Rule 56(f) continuance; (3) grant of Defendant-

Appellee Pali Momi Medical Center's motion for summary

judgment; and (4) exclusion of evidence as related to Linda's

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) claim.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

1 The Honorable Gary W.B. Chang presided. The Estate appeals from the
following underlying orders:

1. March 19, 2020 "Order Granting Defendant Pali Momi Medical
Center's Motion for Summary Judgment Re Medical Negligence,
Vicarious Liability and Informed Consent, Filed January 16,
2020";

2. August 4, 2020 "Order Denying with Prejudice 'Plaintiff's Motion
for Reconsideration of the Order Granting Defendant Pali Momi
Medical Center's Motion for Summary Judgment Re Medical
Negligence, Vicarious Liability and Informed Consent, Filed
January 16, 2020, Filed on March 19, 2020,' Which Motion Was
Filed on April 6, 2020";

3. April 6, 2021 "Order Granting, in Part, and Denying, in Part,
Defendant Pali Momi Medical Center's Motion for Fees and Costs,
Filed January 6, 2021";

4. October 11, 2021 "Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Admit
Joseph A. Yanny, Esq. Pro Hac Vice, Filed 6/30/21 [DOC. 935]";
and

5. March 19, 2020 "Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Defendants Thomas W. Pollard, D.O. and Natalie Kitamura, APRN's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Filed 1/17/20."

(Formatting altered.)

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

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve the

points of error as discussed below and affirm.

In September 2016, Linda (self-represented) sued Pali

Momi, as well as Defendants Thomas Pollard, D.O. (Dr. Pollard),

Natalie Kitamura, APRN (Nurse Kitamura), and the Board of

Directors for Hawaiʻi Pacific Health. 2 In her complaint, Linda

asserted Negligence, Malpractice, and Wrongful Death/Vicarious

Liability claims.

According to Linda's complaint, her twenty-three-year-

old son, Titus Wilson, had a complicated medical history, was

admitted to Pali Momi in June 2014, and died of septic shock.

Although not named as parties or mentioned in her

complaint, other doctors involved in Titus's care were Ky Le,

M.D. (Dr. Le); John Kao, M.D. (Dr. Kao); and Abhijeet Koli, M.D.

(Dr. Koli).

Over a year later, in October 2017, Richard Gronna,

Esq., and Jonathan E. Burge, Esq., entered their appearance as

the Estate's attorneys. A jury trial was initially set for

August 2019.

In June 2018, Attorneys Gronna and Burge moved to

withdraw, which was granted. In the order granting the motion

2 In February 2020, the parties stipulated to dismiss the Board of
Directors. As mentioned below, the Estate and Linda settled with Dr. Pollard
and Nurse Kitamura in December 2022 and stipulated to dismiss Dr. Pollard and
Nurse Kitamura in June 2023. Thus, this appeal only involves the Estate's
claims against Pali Momi.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

to withdraw, the circuit court stated that "the Estate must be

represented by an individual who is licensed to practice law in

Hawaii or otherwise privileged to practice law in Hawaii."

In September 2018, Dr. Pollard and Nurse Kitamura

moved for judgment on the pleadings, as there was no attorney

representing the Estate. Pali Momi joined. The circuit court

denied the motion but reiterated that the Estate must be

represented by a licensed attorney.

In February 2019, William C. McCorriston, Esq., and

Jesse J.T. Smith, Esq., from McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon

LLP (McCorriston Firm), entered their appearance as the Estate's

attorneys. With trial six months away, the Estate moved to

continue trial and all pretrial deadlines. Over the other

parties' objections, the circuit court continued trial to March

2020. Discovery cut-off was January 9, 2020. 3

In July 2019, the Estate moved for leave to amend

Linda's complaint, which the circuit court granted "with respect

to the claim for [IIED] which is being alleged by [Linda] in her

individual capacity against Dr. Pollard and Nurse Kitamura

only."

3 Certain deadlines were extended by stipulation for deposing certain
doctors.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On December 30, 2019, the Estate noticed Pali Momi's

deposition under HRCP Rule 30(b)(6) 4 for nineteen various areas

of inquiry. On January 9, 2020, Pali Momi moved "for a

protective order to preclude the depositions of the 30(b)(6)

designee(s)" as being irrelevant, overbroad, and in excess of

the Estate's deposition limit.

On January 16, 2020, seven days after discovery cut-

off, Pali Momi moved for summary judgment on the Estate's claims

of Medical Negligence, Vicarious Liability, and Informed

Consent. Also in January 2020, Dr. Pollard and Nurse Kitamura

moved for partial summary judgment on various claims, including

Linda's IIED claim, which Pali Momi joined.

On February 6, the Estate moved to compel Pali Momi's

HRCP Rule 30(b)(6) deposition as well as to produce documents it

requested on November 20, 2019.

4 HRCP Rule 30(b)(6) provides as follows:

A party may in the party's notice and in a subpoena
name as the deponent a public or private corporation or a
partnership or association or governmental agency and
describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which
examination is requested. In that event, the organization
so named shall designate one or more officers, directors,
or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify
on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person
designated, the matters on which the person will testify.
A subpoena shall advise a non-party organization of its
duty to make such a designation. The persons so designated
shall testify as to matters known or reasonably available
to the organization. This subdivision (b)(6) does not
preclude taking a deposition by any other procedure
authorized in these Rules.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On February 28, the circuit court verbally granted

Dr. Pollard and Nurse Kitamura's motion for summary judgment as

to IIED after excluding evidence related to that claim and

entered its written order on March 19. On March 3, the circuit

court verbally granted Pali Momi's motion for summary judgment

as to Medical Negligence, Vicarious Liability, and Informed

Consent and entered its written order on March 19.

On March 4, the circuit court granted Pali Momi's

motion for a protective order to preclude the deposition of the

HRCP Rule 30(b)(6) designee(s). The circuit court also

partially granted the Estate's motion to compel production of

Pali Momi's policies and procedures, limiting production to the

policies on informed consent, prescription medication, treatment

plan, and hospitalization.

On March 11, trial commenced against Dr. Pollard and

Nurse Kitamura. Six days later, the circuit court suspended

trial due to the COVID-19 pandemic; it ultimately declared a

mistrial and released the jurors.

On April 6, the Estate moved for reconsideration of

the order granting Pali Momi's motion for summary judgment

regarding Medical Negligence, Vicarious Liability, and Informed

Consent, which the circuit court denied.

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

A year later, in April 2021, the McCorriston Firm

withdrew; Attorney Smith (formerly of the McCorriston Firm, now

affiliated with Yamamoto Caliboso, LLLC) appeared.

By June 2023, Linda and the Estate reached a

settlement with Dr. Pollard and Nurse Kitamura and stipulated to

dismiss the case against them.

As to Pali Momi, the circuit court entered its final

judgment in favor of Pali Momi and against the Estate. Final

judgment was also entered against Linda on her IIED claim. The

Estate (and Linda) timely appealed.

(1) First, the Estate contends the circuit court

"erred when it partially granted [the Estate's] Motion to

Compel, granting documentary evidence but not allowing

additional discovery." (Formatting altered.)

In its points of error, the Estate sets forth the

background as to its motion to compel. The Estate then states

that, "[a]lthough [its] counsel never specifically raised it,

the deposition was also necessary under [HRCP] Rule 56(f) to

properly respond to" Pali Momi's motion for summary judgment,

"which the court had already granted the day before," and "the

court abused its discretion when it did not allow [the Estate]

additional discovery based upon the compelled documents and its

denial of the deposition severely prejudiced [the Estate]."

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The Estate, however, presents no argument to support

these conclusory statements. See Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate

Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(7) (requiring an "argument,

containing the contentions of the appellant on the points

presented and the reasons therefor, with citations to the

authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on").

A circuit court abuses its discretion when it

disregards rules or principles of law to a party's substantial

detriment. Dela Cruz v. Quemado, 141 Hawaiʻi 338, 344, 409 P.3d

742, 748 (2018) (quoting Shanghai Inv. Co. v. Alteka Co., 92

Hawaiʻi 482, 491-92, 993 P.2d 516, 525-26 (2000)). But the

Estate does not provide reasons and citations to authorities

showing the circuit court disregarded rules or principles of

law. See Hawaii Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc., 114 Hawaiʻi 438,

496, 164 P.3d 696, 754 (2007) (explaining where the appellant

does not provide this court with reasons why the circuit court

erred, the appellant's argument must fail).

Thus, we consider this argument waived. See HRAP

Rule 28(b)(7) ("Points not argued may be deemed waived.").

(2) Next, the Estate contends the circuit court

"erred when it did not grant [an HRCP] 56(f) continuance prior

to ruling on [Pali Momi's] Summary Judgment Motion."

(Formatting altered.)

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

HRCP Rule 56(f) allows for a continuance if the

opposing party's affidavits show that a continuance will help

enable the opposing party, by discovery or other means, to

establish specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial:

Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing
the motion that the party cannot for reasons stated present
by affidavit facts essential to justify the party's
opposition, the court may refuse the application for
judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to
be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be
had or may make such other order as is just.

HRCP Rule 56(f) (emphasis added); see generally Acoba v. Gen.

Tire, Inc., 92 Hawaiʻi 1, 9-10, 986 P.2d 288, 296-97 (1999)

(explaining the request for continuance "must demonstrate how

postponement of a ruling on the motion will enable [the party],

by discovery or other means, to rebut the movants' showing of

absence of a genuine issue of fact" (citation modified)).

"A trial court's decision to deny a request for a

continuance pursuant to HRCP Rule 56(f) . . . will not be

reversed absent an abuse of discretion." Acoba, 92 Hawaiʻi at 9,

986 P.2d at 296.

The Estate's memorandum in opposition argued that Pali

Momi was vicariously liable under the doctrines of respondeat

superior or apparent authority for the medical negligence of

various medical personnel involved in Titus's care. The Estate

attached three declarations to its memorandum in opposition to

Pali Momi's motion for summary judgment — one from Attorney

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Smith, another from Linda herself, and the third from the

Estate's expert, Andrew Nett, M.D. None of these declarations

explained why postponement of the circuit court's ruling would

assist the Estate in showing there was a genuine issue of

material fact as to Pali Momi's vicarious liability. Although

Attorney Smith's declaration referenced his attempts to acquire

Pali Momi's policies and procedures, there was no explanation in

his declaration as to how acquiring Pali Momi's policies and

procedures would rebut Pali Momi's showing of no genuine issue

of material fact.

Where the declarations attached to the Estate's

memorandum in opposition failed to explain how a continuance

would allow it to rebut Pali Momi's motion for summary judgment,

the circuit court did not disregard rules or principles of law

and, thus, did not abuse its discretion.

(3) Third, the Estate contends it "presented

evidence, at both the opposition to the Motion for Summary

Judgment, and the Motion to Reconsider the Motion for Summary

Judgment which raised material issues of fact." (Formatting

altered.) The Estate argues that Pali Momi was vicariously

liable, advancing the theories of respondeat superior and

apparent authority.

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(a) Respondeat Superior

In its points of error, the Estate contends it

presented evidence showing Pali Momi was liable under respondeat

superior.

Block-quoting from its memorandum in opposition to

Pali Momi's motion for summary judgment, the Estate points out

that Dr. Kao and Dr. Koli were employed by Pali Momi or Hawaiʻi

Pacific Health at the time Titus was treated. The Estate then

asserts that Dr. Kao and Dr. Koli "appear to have failed to have

adequately reviewed Titus's hospital records to Titus's

detriment." The Estate relies on the "common knowledge"

exception to the requirement that expert medical testimony be

used to establish negligence in medical malpractice actions.

We pause to note that the Estate makes no argument on

appeal that Pali Momi was vicariously liable under the theory of

respondeat superior for Dr. Pollard or Nurse Kitamura.

We review the circuit court's grant of summary

judgment de novo. Dairy Rd. Partners v. Island Ins. Co., 92

Hawaiʻi 398, 411, 992 P.2d 93, 106 (2000) (quoting Amfac, Inc. v.

Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 104, 839 P.2d 10, 22

(1992)). "Only with the satisfaction of [an] initial showing

does the burden shift to the nonmoving party to respond by

affidavits or as otherwise provided in HRCP Rule 56, setting

forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

trial." Kondaur Cap. Corp. v. Matsuyoshi, 136 Hawaiʻi 227, 240-

41, 361 P.3d 454, 467-68 (2015) (citation modified).

Under respondeat superior, "an employer may be liable

for the negligent acts of its employees that occur within the

scope of their employment." Wong-Leong v. Hawaiian Indep.

Refinery, Inc., 76 Hawaiʻi 433, 438, 879 P.2d 538, 543 (1994).

"It is well settled that in medical malpractice

actions, the question of negligence must be decided by reference

to relevant medical standards of care for which the plaintiff

carries the burden of proving through expert medical testimony."

Craft v. Peebles, 78 Hawaiʻi 287, 298, 893 P.2d 138, 149 (1995).

"The standard of care to which a doctor has failed to adhere

must be established by expert testimony because a jury generally

lacks the requisite special knowledge, technical training, and

background to be able to determine the applicable standard

without assistance of an expert." Id. (citation modified).

An exception is the "common knowledge" exception,

which "provides that certain medical situations present routine

or non-complex matters wherein [lay persons are] capable of

supplanting the applicable standard of care from [their] 'common

knowledge' or ordinary experience." Id. For example, leaving a

sponge in a patient or removing the wrong body part. Id.

(quoting Medina v. Figuered, 3 Haw. App. 186, 188, 647 P.2d 292,

12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

294 (App. 1982)). "This exception, however, is rare in

application." Id.

In its complaint, the Estate did not claim that Pali

Momi was vicariously liable for Dr. Kao and Dr. Koli's actions.

Nonetheless, even if we were to liberally interpret the self-

represented complaint and its amendment and assume Pali Momi was

on notice for being vicariously liable for Dr. Kao and

Dr. Koli's alleged inadequate review of Titus's hospital

records, such an assertion necessarily requires reference to

medical standards for what is adequate in reviewing hospital

records. In any event, as discussed infra, the record also

reflects that the policies subsequently obtained by the Estate

were ultimately ruled inadmissible because they were not

comprehensible to a lay juror without the aid of an expert.

Determining the adequacy of a doctor's review of a

hospital record requires an understanding of the hospital

record's contents. Hospital records contain medical terms and

procedures. "[S]pecial knowledge, technical training, and

background" are required to understand that information and

whether it was significant to Titus's treatment. See Craft, 78

Hawaiʻi at 298, 300-01, 893 P.2d at 149, 151-52 (holding that the

manufacturer's "package inserts alone, without supporting expert

testimony, are insufficient to establish a standard of care").

Thus, the adequacy of a doctor's review of this information,

13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

which is the Estate's challenge, is not within a lay person's

common knowledge. See id.

We decline to apply the common knowledge exception

under these circumstances. As such, the circuit court did not

err in granting summary judgment as to the Estate's claim that

Pali Momi was vicariously liable under the theory of respondeat

superior for Dr. Kao and Dr. Koli's alleged inadequate review of

the hospital records.

(b) Apparent Authority

In its points of error, the Estate asserts that it

presented evidence showing Pali Momi was liable for the actions

of Dr. Pollard, Nurse Kitamura, and Dr. Le under the theory of

apparent authority. The Estate's entire apparent authority

argument is as follows:

Evidence was also submitted, that in the best light
to the plaintiff, that the Doctors and Nurses who worked on
[Titus] appeared to have apparent authority to act on
behalf of [Pali Momi]. See #458 at 2-3 and #458 at 8-12.
Evidence also established that [Pali Momi] had apparent
authority over Dr. Le. See #458 at 12-13.

The Estate's argument is conclusory. See HRAP

Rule 28(b)(7). And to the extent the Estate attempts to

incorporate arguments made in its opposition to Pali Momi's

motion for summary judgment by simply citing to docket and page

numbers, incorporation by reference is improper here. Kapiolani

Com. Ctr. v. A&S P'ship, 68 Haw. 580, 584, 723 P.2d 181, 184-85

(1986) ("[C]ross-appellant, in violation of our 35-page

14
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

limitation set forth in HRAP Rule 28(a), attempts to incorporate

by reference in its brief, the arguments made before the trial

court. Since this is in violation of our rules, we will

disregard those points.").

Thus, we consider the Estate's apparent authority

argument waived. See id. Relatedly, the Estate argues that if

Pali Momi is liable for the medical negligence of Dr. Pollard

and Nurse Kitamura, Pali Momi had a duty of informed consent. 5

Because we consider the Estate's apparent authority argument

waived, we do not reach the issue of informed consent.

(c) Motion for Reconsideration

In its motion for reconsideration, the Estate argued

that "[n]ew evidence, which could not have been adequately

reviewed prior to the filing of [its] memorandum in opposition

to the [motion for summary judgment] or were produced after the

Court's oral finding on the [motion for summary judgment], have

brought to light genuine issues of material fact that support a

denial of the [motion for summary judgment]."

"The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to

allow the parties to present new evidence and/or arguments that

could not have been presented during the earlier adjudicated

5 "According to Hawaii law, physicians, and not hospitals, are required
to obtain the informed consent of patients." Bynum v. Magno, 125 F. Supp. 2d
1249, 1267 (D. Haw. 2000).

15
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

motion." Amfac, 74 Haw. at 114, 839 P.2d at 27. The denial of

a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for an abuse of

discretion. Id. at 114, 839 P.2d at 26.

Specifically, the Estate pointed to learning that

Nurse Kitamura was an employee of Pali Momi, "which raised a

genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether [Pali

Momi] was vicariously liable for Nurse Kitamura's negligence."

On this point, the circuit court found that Nurse

Kitamura was employed by both Pali Momi and Dr. Pollard, but the

"material fact [was] which employer had control over [Nurse]

Kitamura's treatment of Titus Wilson." To that, the circuit

court also found that, "[o]n the question of control over

[Nurse] Kitamura at the times that she treated Titus Wilson,

there is no genuine issue of material fact. The record shows

that only [Dr.] Pollard had control over [Nurse] Kitamura during

the treatment of Titus Wilson." The circuit court thus

determined there was no basis to reconsider its summary judgment

ruling based on the doctrine of respondeat superior.

In its opening brief, the Estate does not identify

evidence in the record that shows Pali Momi exerted any control

over Nurse Kitamura as to Titus's treatment or that shows the

circuit court's determination that this material fact was not

disputed, was wrong. See Lanai Co. v. Land Use Comm'n, 105

Hawaiʻi 296, 309 n.31, 97 P.3d 372, 385 n.31 (2004) ("This court

16
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

is not obligated to sift through the voluminous record to verify

an appellant's inadequately documented contentions.").

In its motion for reconsideration, the Estate also

pointed to the production of certain Pali Momi policies and

procedures after the granting of summary judgment, which "raise

a genuine issue of material fact as to whether [Pali Momi]

exerted control over Dr. Pollard and Nurse Kitamura such that it

is vicariously liable for their negligence and whether [Pali

Momi] impliedly granted these healthcare providers authority to

act on its behalf."

The circuit court found that Pali Momi's policies and

procedures were "not readily understandable to the average

juror," as they involved "concepts of medical treatment, the

manner in which health care providers' business practices dove

tail with sophisticated hospital organizations." The Estate had

not "named an expert witness to testify as to the interpretation

of [Pali Momi]'s policies and procedures." The circuit court

concluded that "there are no genuine issues of material fact

with regard to whether [Pali Momi] can be held liable based on

its policies and procedures."

In the argument section of its opening brief, the

Estate argues the "policy and procedures showed, in plain

language that did not need an expert, that there was a material

fact as to whether [Pali Momi], had enough control over the

17
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

medical personnel treating" Titus. But the Estate does not

expressly identify the policies and procedures on which it

relies or explain why the policies and procedures on which it

relies are understandable to lay persons.

As such, we cannot say the circuit court's findings

were clearly erroneous or that the circuit court abused its

discretion in denying the Estate's motion for reconsideration.

(4) Finally, the Estate contends the circuit court

"erred when it denied Dr. Pollard and Nurse Kitamura's Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment and the [IIED] count, but then

ruled that the Statements, which it ruled would in the light

most favorable to [Linda] create emotional distress were more

prejudicial than probative and dismissed the count anyway."

(Formatting altered.)

The IIED claim against Pali Momi is premised on

whether Pali Momi is vicariously liable for Dr. Pollard and

Nurse Kitamura's actions. But, as discussed above, we affirm

the circuit court's granting of Pali Momi's motion for summary

judgment, which included Linda's claim that Pali Momi was

vicariously liable for Dr. Pollard and Nurse Kitamura's actions.

18
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

As such, the circuit court did not err in dismissing the IIED

claim, albeit on different grounds.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court's

July 17, 2023 Final Judgment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 30, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge
Jonathan E. Burge,
for Plaintiff-Appellant. /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Associate Judge
Gail Y. Cosgrove,
Deirdre Marie-Iha, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Maegan A. Ruggles, Associate Judge
Lindsey N. Barrios,
(Goodsill Anderson Quinn &
Stifel),
for Defendant-Appellee.

19

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

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
30-APR-2026
08:33 AM
Dkt. 96 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

LINDA WILSON, on behalf of the Estate of TITUS WILSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PALI MOMI MEDICAL CENTER,
a Hawaii Domestic Nonprofit Corporation;
THOMAS W. POLLARD, D.O.; NATALIE KITAMURA, APRN,
Defendants-Appellees, and
DOES 1-10, Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CC161001725)

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

Plaintiff-Appellant Linda Wilson, on behalf of the

Estate of Titus Wilson (together, the Estate), appeals from the
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Circuit Court of the First Circuit's July 17, 2023 Final

Judgment and various underlying orders. 1

On appeal, the Estate raises four points of error,

challenging the circuit court's (1) partial grant of its motion

to compel; (2) denial of its request for a Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil

Procedure (HRCP) Rule 56(f) continuance; (3) grant of Defendant-

Appellee Pali Momi Medical Center's motion for summary

judgment; and (4) exclusion of evidence as related to Linda's

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) claim.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

1 The Honorable Gary W.B. Chang presided. The Estate appeals from the
following underlying orders:

1. March 19, 2020 "Order Granting Defendant Pali Momi Medical
Center's Motion for Summary Judgment Re Medical Negligence,
Vicarious Liability and Informed Consent, Filed January 16,
2020";

2. August 4, 2020 "Order Denying with Prejudice 'Plaintiff's Motion
for Reconsideration of the Order Granting Defendant Pali Momi
Medical Center's Motion for Summary Judgment Re Medical
Negligence, Vicarious Liability and Informed Consent, Filed
January 16, 2020, Filed on March 19, 2020,' Which Motion Was
Filed on April 6, 2020";

3. April 6, 2021 "Order Granting, in Part, and Denying, in Part,
Defendant Pali Momi Medical Center's Motion for Fees and Costs,
Filed January 6, 2021";

4. October 11, 2021 "Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Admit
Joseph A. Yanny, Esq. Pro Hac Vice, Filed 6/30/21 [DOC. 935]";
and

5. March 19, 2020 "Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Defendants Thomas W. Pollard, D.O. and Natalie Kitamura, APRN's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Filed 1/17/20."

(Formatting altered.)

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

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve the

points of error as discussed below and affirm.

In September 2016, Linda (self-represented) sued Pali

Momi, as well as Defendants Thomas Pollard, D.O. (Dr. Pollard),

Natalie Kitamura, APRN (Nurse Kitamura), and the Board of

Directors for Hawaiʻi Pacific Health. 2 In her complaint, Linda

asserted Negligence, Malpractice, and Wrongful Death/Vicarious

Liability claims.

According to Linda's complaint, her twenty-three-year-

old son, Titus Wilson, had a complicated medical history, was

admitted to Pali Momi in June 2014, and died of septic shock.

Although not named as parties or mentioned in her

complaint, other doctors involved in Titus's care were Ky Le,

M.D. (Dr. Le); John Kao, M.D. (Dr. Kao); and Abhijeet Koli, M.D.

(Dr. Koli).

Over a year later, in October 2017, Richard Gronna,

Esq., and Jonathan E. Burge, Esq., entered their appearance as

the Estate's attorneys. A jury trial was initially set for

August 2019.

In June 2018, Attorneys Gronna and Burge moved to

withdraw, which was granted. In the order granting the motion

2 In February 2020, the parties stipulated to dismiss the Board of
Directors. As mentioned below, the Estate and Linda settled with Dr. Pollard
and Nurse Kitamura in December 2022 and stipulated to dismiss Dr. Pollard and
Nurse Kitamura in June 2023. Thus, this appeal only involves the Estate's
claims against Pali Momi.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

to withdraw, the circuit court stated that "the Estate must be

represented by an individual who is licensed to practice law in

Hawaii or otherwise privileged to practice law in Hawaii."

In September 2018, Dr. Pollard and Nurse Kitamura

moved for judgment on the pleadings, as there was no attorney

representing the Estate. Pali Momi joined. The circuit court

denied the motion but reiterated that the Estate must be

represented by a licensed attorney.

In February 2019, William C. McCorriston, Esq., and

Jesse J.T. Smith, Esq., from McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon

LLP (McCorriston Firm), entered their appearance as the Estate's

attorneys. With trial six months away, the Estate moved to

continue trial and all pretrial deadlines. Over the other

parties' objections, the circuit court continued trial to March

2020. Discovery cut-off was January 9, 2020. 3

In July 2019, the Estate moved for leave to amend

Linda's complaint, which the circuit court granted "with respect

to the claim for [IIED] which is being alleged by [Linda] in her

individual capacity against Dr. Pollard and Nurse Kitamura

only."

3 Certain deadlines were extended by stipulation for deposing certain
doctors.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On December 30, 2019, the Estate noticed Pali Momi's

deposition under HRCP Rule 30(b)(6) 4 for nineteen various areas

of inquiry. On January 9, 2020, Pali Momi moved "for a

protective order to preclude the depositions of the 30(b)(6)

designee(s)" as being irrelevant, overbroad, and in excess of

the Estate's deposition limit.

On January 16, 2020, seven days after discovery cut-

off, Pali Momi moved for summary judgment on the Estate's claims

of Medical Negligence, Vicarious Liability, and Informed

Consent. Also in January 2020, Dr. Pollard and Nurse Kitamura

moved for partial summary judgment on various claims, including

Linda's IIED claim, which Pali Momi joined.

On February 6, the Estate moved to compel Pali Momi's

HRCP Rule 30(b)(6) deposition as well as to produce documents it

requested on November 20, 2019.

4 HRCP Rule 30(b)(6) provides as follows:

A party may in the party's notice and in a subpoena
name as the deponent a public or private corporation or a
partnership or association or governmental agency and
describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which
examination is requested. In that event, the organization
so named shall designate one or more officers, directors,
or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify
on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person
designated, the matters on which the person will testify.
A subpoena shall advise a non-party organization of its
duty to make such a designation. The persons so designated
shall testify as to matters known or reasonably available
to the organization. This subdivision (b)(6) does not
preclude taking a deposition by any other procedure
authorized in these Rules.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On February 28, the circuit court verbally granted

Dr. Pollard and Nurse Kitamura's motion for summary judgment as

to IIED after excluding evidence related to that claim and

entered its written order on March 19. On March 3, the circuit

court verbally granted Pali Momi's motion for summary judgment

as to Medical Negligence, Vicarious Liability, and Informed

Consent and entered its written order on March 19.

On March 4, the circuit court granted Pali Momi's

motion for a protective order to preclude the deposition of the

HRCP Rule 30(b)(6) designee(s). The circuit court also

partially granted the Estate's motion to compel production of

Pali Momi's policies and procedures, limiting production to the

policies on informed consent, prescription medication, treatment

plan, and hospitalization.

On March 11, trial commenced against Dr. Pollard and

Nurse Kitamura. Six days later, the circuit court suspended

trial due to the COVID-19 pandemic; it ultimately declared a

mistrial and released the jurors.

On April 6, the Estate moved for reconsideration of

the order granting Pali Momi's motion for summary judgment

regarding Medical Negligence, Vicarious Liability, and Informed

Consent, which the circuit court denied.

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

A year later, in April 2021, the McCorriston Firm

withdrew; Attorney Smith (formerly of the McCorriston Firm, now

affiliated with Yamamoto Caliboso, LLLC) appeared.

By June 2023, Linda and the Estate reached a

settlement with Dr. Pollard and Nurse Kitamura and stipulated to

dismiss the case against them.

As to Pali Momi, the circuit court entered its final

judgment in favor of Pali Momi and against the Estate. Final

judgment was also entered against Linda on her IIED claim. The

Estate (and Linda) timely appealed.

(1) First, the Estate contends the circuit court

"erred when it partially granted [the Estate's] Motion to

Compel, granting documentary evidence but not allowing

additional discovery." (Formatting altered.)

In its points of error, the Estate sets forth the

background as to its motion to compel. The Estate then states

that, "[a]lthough [its] counsel never specifically raised it,

the deposition was also necessary under [HRCP] Rule 56(f) to

properly respond to" Pali Momi's motion for summary judgment,

"which the court had already granted the day before," and "the

court abused its discretion when it did not allow [the Estate]

additional discovery based upon the compelled documents and its

denial of the deposition severely prejudiced [the Estate]."

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The Estate, however, presents no argument to support

these conclusory statements. See Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate

Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(7) (requiring an "argument,

containing the contentions of the appellant on the points

presented and the reasons therefor, with citations to the

authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on").

A circuit court abuses its discretion when it

disregards rules or principles of law to a party's substantial

detriment. Dela Cruz v. Quemado, 141 Hawaiʻi 338, 344, 409 P.3d

742, 748 (2018) (quoting Shanghai Inv. Co. v. Alteka Co., 92

Hawaiʻi 482, 491-92, 993 P.2d 516, 525-26 (2000)). But the

Estate does not provide reasons and citations to authorities

showing the circuit court disregarded rules or principles of

law. See Hawaii Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc., 114 Hawaiʻi 438,

496, 164 P.3d 696, 754 (2007) (explaining where the appellant

does not provide this court with reasons why the circuit court

erred, the appellant's argument must fail).

Thus, we consider this argument waived. See HRAP

Rule 28(b)(7) ("Points not argued may be deemed waived.").

(2) Next, the Estate contends the circuit court

"erred when it did not grant [an HRCP] 56(f) continuance prior

to ruling on [Pali Momi's] Summary Judgment Motion."

(Formatting altered.)

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

HRCP Rule 56(f) allows for a continuance if the

opposing party's affidavits show that a continuance will help

enable the opposing party, by discovery or other means, to

establish specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial:

Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing
the motion that the party cannot for reasons stated present
by affidavit facts essential to justify the party's
opposition, the court may refuse the application for
judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to
be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be
had or may make such other order as is just.

HRCP Rule 56(f) (emphasis added); see generally Acoba v. Gen.

Tire, Inc., 92 Hawaiʻi 1, 9-10, 986 P.2d 288, 296-97 (1999)

(explaining the request for continuance "must demonstrate how

postponement of a ruling on the motion will enable [the party],

by discovery or other means, to rebut the movants' showing of

absence of a genuine issue of fact" (citation modified)).

"A trial court's decision to deny a request for a

continuance pursuant to HRCP Rule 56(f) . . . will not be

reversed absent an abuse of discretion." Acoba, 92 Hawaiʻi at 9,

986 P.2d at 296.

The Estate's memorandum in opposition argued that Pali

Momi was vicariously liable under the doctrines of respondeat

superior or apparent authority for the medical negligence of

various medical personnel involved in Titus's care. The Estate

attached three declarations to its memorandum in opposition to

Pali Momi's motion for summary judgment — one from Attorney

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Smith, another from Linda herself, and the third from the

Estate's expert, Andrew Nett, M.D. None of these declarations

explained why postponement of the circuit court's ruling would

assist the Estate in showing there was a genuine issue of

material fact as to Pali Momi's vicarious liability. Although

Attorney Smith's declaration referenced his attempts to acquire

Pali Momi's policies and procedures, there was no explanation in

his declaration as to how acquiring Pali Momi's policies and

procedures would rebut Pali Momi's showing of no genuine issue

of material fact.

Where the declarations attached to the Estate's

memorandum in opposition failed to explain how a continuance

would allow it to rebut Pali Momi's motion for summary judgment,

the circuit court did not disregard rules or principles of law

and, thus, did not abuse its discretion.

(3) Third, the Estate contends it "presented

evidence, at both the opposition to the Motion for Summary

Judgment, and the Motion to Reconsider the Motion for Summary

Judgment which raised material issues of fact." (Formatting

altered.) The Estate argues that Pali Momi was vicariously

liable, advancing the theories of respondeat superior and

apparent authority.

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(a) Respondeat Superior

In its points of error, the Estate contends it

presented evidence showing Pali Momi was liable under respondeat

superior.

Block-quoting from its memorandum in opposition to

Pali Momi's motion for summary judgment, the Estate points out

that Dr. Kao and Dr. Koli were employed by Pali Momi or Hawaiʻi

Pacific Health at the time Titus was treated. The Estate then

asserts that Dr. Kao and Dr. Koli "appear to have failed to have

adequately reviewed Titus's hospital records to Titus's

detriment." The Estate relies on the "common knowledge"

exception to the requirement that expert medical testimony be

used to establish negligence in medical malpractice actions.

We pause to note that the Estate makes no argument on

appeal that Pali Momi was vicariously liable under the theory of

respondeat superior for Dr. Pollard or Nurse Kitamura.

We review the circuit court's grant of summary

judgment de novo. Dairy Rd. Partners v. Island Ins. Co., 92

Hawaiʻi 398, 411, 992 P.2d 93, 106 (2000) (quoting Amfac, Inc. v.

Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 104, 839 P.2d 10, 22

(1992)). "Only with the satisfaction of [an] initial showing

does the burden shift to the nonmoving party to respond by

affidavits or as otherwise provided in HRCP Rule 56, setting

forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

trial." Kondaur Cap. Corp. v. Matsuyoshi, 136 Hawaiʻi 227, 240-

41, 361 P.3d 454, 467-68 (2015) (citation modified).

Under respondeat superior, "an employer may be liable

for the negligent acts of its employees that occur within the

scope of their employment." Wong-Leong v. Hawaiian Indep.

Refinery, Inc., 76 Hawaiʻi 433, 438, 879 P.2d 538, 543 (1994).

"It is well settled that in medical malpractice

actions, the question of negligence must be decided by reference

to relevant medical standards of care for which the plaintiff

carries the burden of proving through expert medical testimony."

Craft v. Peebles, 78 Hawaiʻi 287, 298, 893 P.2d 138, 149 (1995).

"The standard of care to which a doctor has failed to adhere

must be established by expert testimony because a jury generally

lacks the requisite special knowledge, technical training, and

background to be able to determine the applicable standard

without assistance of an expert." Id. (citation modified).

An exception is the "common knowledge" exception,

which "provides that certain medical situations present routine

or non-complex matters wherein [lay persons are] capable of

supplanting the applicable standard of care from [their] 'common

knowledge' or ordinary experience." Id. For example, leaving a

sponge in a patient or removing the wrong body part. Id.

(quoting Medina v. Figuered, 3 Haw. App. 186, 188, 647 P.2d 292,

12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

294 (App. 1982)). "This exception, however, is rare in

application." Id.

In its complaint, the Estate did not claim that Pali

Momi was vicariously liable for Dr. Kao and Dr. Koli's actions.

Nonetheless, even if we were to liberally interpret the self-

represented complaint and its amendment and assume Pali Momi was

on notice for being vicariously liable for Dr. Kao and

Dr. Koli's alleged inadequate review of Titus's hospital

records, such an assertion necessarily requires reference to

medical standards for what is adequate in reviewing hospital

records. In any event, as discussed infra, the record also

reflects that the policies subsequently obtained by the Estate

were ultimately ruled inadmissible because they were not

comprehensible to a lay juror without the aid of an expert.

Determining the adequacy of a doctor's review of a

hospital record requires an understanding of the hospital

record's contents. Hospital records contain medical terms and

procedures. "[S]pecial knowledge, technical training, and

background" are required to understand that information and

whether it was significant to Titus's treatment. See Craft, 78

Hawaiʻi at 298, 300-01, 893 P.2d at 149, 151-52 (holding that the

manufacturer's "package inserts alone, without supporting expert

testimony, are insufficient to establish a standard of care").

Thus, the adequacy of a doctor's review of this information,

13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

which is the Estate's challenge, is not within a lay person's

common knowledge. See id.

We decline to apply the common knowledge exception

under these circumstances. As such, the circuit court did not

err in granting summary judgment as to the Estate's claim that

Pali Momi was vicariously liable under the theory of respondeat

superior for Dr. Kao and Dr. Koli's alleged inadequate review of

the hospital records.

(b) Apparent Authority

In its points of error, the Estate asserts that it

presented evidence showing Pali Momi was liable for the actions

of Dr. Pollard, Nurse Kitamura, and Dr. Le under the theory of

apparent authority. The Estate's entire apparent authority

argument is as follows:

Evidence was also submitted, that in the best light
to the plaintiff, that the Doctors and Nurses who worked on
[Titus] appeared to have apparent authority to act on
behalf of [Pali Momi]. See #458 at 2-3 and #458 at 8-12.
Evidence also established that [Pali Momi] had apparent
authority over Dr. Le. See #458 at 12-13.

The Estate's argument is conclusory. See HRAP

Rule 28(b)(7). And to the extent the Estate attempts to

incorporate arguments made in its opposition to Pali Momi's

motion for summary judgment by simply citing to docket and page

numbers, incorporation by reference is improper here. Kapiolani

Com. Ctr. v. A&S P'ship, 68 Haw. 580, 584, 723 P.2d 181, 184-85

(1986) ("[C]ross-appellant, in violation of our 35-page

14
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

limitation set forth in HRAP Rule 28(a), attempts to incorporate

by reference in its brief, the arguments made before the trial

court. Since this is in violation of our rules, we will

disregard those points.").

Thus, we consider the Estate's apparent authority

argument waived. See id. Relatedly, the Estate argues that if

Pali Momi is liable for the medical negligence of Dr. Pollard

and Nurse Kitamura, Pali Momi had a duty of informed consent. 5

Because we consider the Estate's apparent authority argument

waived, we do not reach the issue of informed consent.

(c) Motion for Reconsideration

In its motion for reconsideration, the Estate argued

that "[n]ew evidence, which could not have been adequately

reviewed prior to the filing of [its] memorandum in opposition

to the [motion for summary judgment] or were produced after the

Court's oral finding on the [motion for summary judgment], have

brought to light genuine issues of material fact that support a

denial of the [motion for summary judgment]."

"The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to

allow the parties to present new evidence and/or arguments that

could not have been presented during the earlier adjudicated

5 "According to Hawaii law, physicians, and not hospitals, are required
to obtain the informed consent of patients." Bynum v. Magno, 125 F. Supp. 2d
1249, 1267 (D. Haw. 2000).

15
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

motion." Amfac, 74 Haw. at 114, 839 P.2d at 27. The denial of

a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for an abuse of

discretion. Id. at 114, 839 P.2d at 26.

Specifically, the Estate pointed to learning that

Nurse Kitamura was an employee of Pali Momi, "which raised a

genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether [Pali

Momi] was vicariously liable for Nurse Kitamura's negligence."

On this point, the circuit court found that Nurse

Kitamura was employed by both Pali Momi and Dr. Pollard, but the

"material fact [was] which employer had control over [Nurse]

Kitamura's treatment of Titus Wilson." To that, the circuit

court also found that, "[o]n the question of control over

[Nurse] Kitamura at the times that she treated Titus Wilson,

there is no genuine issue of material fact. The record shows

that only [Dr.] Pollard had control over [Nurse] Kitamura during

the treatment of Titus Wilson." The circuit court thus

determined there was no basis to reconsider its summary judgment

ruling based on the doctrine of respondeat superior.

In its opening brief, the Estate does not identify

evidence in the record that shows Pali Momi exerted any control

over Nurse Kitamura as to Titus's treatment or that shows the

circuit court's determination that this material fact was not

disputed, was wrong. See Lanai Co. v. Land Use Comm'n, 105

Hawaiʻi 296, 309 n.31, 97 P.3d 372, 385 n.31 (2004) ("This court

16
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

is not obligated to sift through the voluminous record to verify

an appellant's inadequately documented contentions.").

In its motion for reconsideration, the Estate also

pointed to the production of certain Pali Momi policies and

procedures after the granting of summary judgment, which "raise

a genuine issue of material fact as to whether [Pali Momi]

exerted control over Dr. Pollard and Nurse Kitamura such that it

is vicariously liable for their negligence and whether [Pali

Momi] impliedly granted these healthcare providers authority to

act on its behalf."

The circuit court found that Pali Momi's policies and

procedures were "not readily understandable to the average

juror," as they involved "concepts of medical treatment, the

manner in which health care providers' business practices dove

tail with sophisticated hospital organizations." The Estate had

not "named an expert witness to testify as to the interpretation

of [Pali Momi]'s policies and procedures." The circuit court

concluded that "there are no genuine issues of material fact

with regard to whether [Pali Momi] can be held liable based on

its policies and procedures."

In the argument section of its opening brief, the

Estate argues the "policy and procedures showed, in plain

language that did not need an expert, that there was a material

fact as to whether [Pali Momi], had enough control over the

17
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

medical personnel treating" Titus. But the Estate does not

expressly identify the policies and procedures on which it

relies or explain why the policies and procedures on which it

relies are understandable to lay persons.

As such, we cannot say the circuit court's findings

were clearly erroneous or that the circuit court abused its

discretion in denying the Estate's motion for reconsideration.

(4) Finally, the Estate contends the circuit court

"erred when it denied Dr. Pollard and Nurse Kitamura's Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment and the [IIED] count, but then

ruled that the Statements, which it ruled would in the light

most favorable to [Linda] create emotional distress were more

prejudicial than probative and dismissed the count anyway."

(Formatting altered.)

The IIED claim against Pali Momi is premised on

whether Pali Momi is vicariously liable for Dr. Pollard and

Nurse Kitamura's actions. But, as discussed above, we affirm

the circuit court's granting of Pali Momi's motion for summary

judgment, which included Linda's claim that Pali Momi was

vicariously liable for Dr. Pollard and Nurse Kitamura's actions.

18
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

As such, the circuit court did not err in dismissing the IIED

claim, albeit on different grounds.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court's

July 17, 2023 Final Judgment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 30, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge
Jonathan E. Burge,
for Plaintiff-Appellant. /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Associate Judge
Gail Y. Cosgrove,
Deirdre Marie-Iha, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Maegan A. Ruggles, Associate Judge
Lindsey N. Barrios,
(Goodsill Anderson Quinn &
Stifel),
for Defendant-Appellee.

19