GREINER v. PRATT ASSOCIATES, 2000 CRB-8-94-3 (4-12-95)

ROBERT GREINER, JR., CLAIMANT and VETERANS MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, MEDICAL PROVIDER, APPELLANT v. PRATT ASSOCIATES, EMPLOYER and ATLAS ASSURANCE C/O CRAWFORD COMPANY, INSURER, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES DAVID RIERA, CLAIMANT and VETERANS MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, MEDICAL PROVIDER, APPELLANT v. CITY OF MERIDEN/MERIDEN POLICE DEPARTMENT, EMPLOYER and CITY OF MERIDEN/OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES STEPHEN J. BINETTE, CLAIMANT and VETERANS MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL PROVIDER APPELLANT v. CITY OF WATERBURY/WATERBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT, EMPLOYER and SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND CLAIM SERVICE, INC., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

CASE NOS. 2000 CRB-8-94-3, 1999 CRB-8-94-3, 1998 CRB-8-94-3Workers’ Compensation Commission
APRIL 12, 1995

The claimant did not appear.

The medical provider was represented by Houston Putnam Lowry, Esq. and Thomas P. Malnati, Esq., Brown Welsh, P. C.

The respondents did not appear.

This Petition for Review from the Eighth District’s denial of an informal hearing was heard October 28, 1994 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of Commissioners Angelo L. dos Santos, Nancy A. Brouillet and Michael S. Miles.

This Petition for Review from the July 29, 1992 Indefinite Postponement of Hearing of the Chairman acting for matters arising in the Eighth District was heard October 28, 1994 before a Compensation Review board panel consisting of Commissioners Angelo L. dos Santos, Nancy A. Brouillet and Michael S. Miles.

OPINION

ANGELO L. dos SANTOS, COMMISSIONER.

The following is a consolidated opinion regarding the Veterans Memorial Medical Center’s filing of Petitions For Review dated March 18, 1994 from a district office’s failure to schedule an informal hearing concerning the payment of medical bills.[1]

Our opinions as to appellant-medical provider’s right to an informal hearing concerning the payment of medical bills were announced in Baigert and Veterans Memorial Medical Center v.Fosdick Corp., Case No. 1784 CRB-8-93-7 (Decided January 20, 1995). We think our rulings and the legal reasoning announced inBaigert, id., are equally applicable to the instant claims as virtually the identical issue is raised in these appeals. InBaigert, we held that in the absence of any evidence that claims under chapter 568 were pursued by the employees, this tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the res and the appeals were dismissed. Thus, if the medical provider can relate the services rendered to an employee’s chapter 568 claim, the medical provider is entitled to a hearing[2] . See, Cookson v. G.R. Cummings Co., Case No. 1796 CRB-8-93-7 (decided January 20, 1995).

We, therefore, dismiss the instant appeals and leave the medical provider to its proof as to whether underlying chapter 568 claims exist in the instant matters.

Commissioners Nancy A. Brouillet and Michael S. Miles concur.

[1] The district office’s decision not to schedule an informal hearing appears to be predicated on a copy of a July 29, 1992 letter to Atty. Thomas J. Welsh from Chairman Jesse M. Frankl. Additionally it appears that an undated letter from the Eighth District manager to counsel for Veterans’ Memorial Medical Center reflects the decision to not schedule an informal hearing in the captioned matters. That letter was allegedly received by counsel for Veterans’ Memorial Medical Center on March 17, 1994.

[2] We note that in the Riera appeal amongst the papers submitted on appeal is a copy of a January 21, 1994 letter from Mimi Puebla, Sr. Claims Consultant for ITT Hartford in which the apportionment of medical bills is discussed. There is also a passing reference to a June 22, 1984 date of injury.