CATHY BOWMAN, CLAIMANT-APPELLEE and STAMFORD HOSPITAL, MEDICAL PROVIDER v. CITY OF STAMFORD, BOARD OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT

CASE NO. 859-CRD-7-89-5Workers’ Compensation Commission
MAY 24, 1990

The appeal in the above matter concerned issues between Stamford Hospital and the Respondent. Therefore, no appearance on behalf of the claimant was necessary. Further, by agreement of the parties before the Compensation Review Division, it was agreed that the matter would be decided on the basis of briefs submitted and oral argument was waived.

The Stamford Hospital was represented by Griffith H. Trow, Esq., Burdett, Trow Sank, P.C.

The respondent was represented by George W. Waldron, Esq., and John Greiner, Esq., both of Murphy Beane.

This Petition for Review from the April 18, 1989 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Seventh District was decided pursuant to papers submitted for the February 2, 1990 hearing before the Compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commissioners A. Paul Berte’ and Frank Verrilli.

OPINION

JOHN ARCUDI, CHAIRMAN.

This matter was heard below on stipulated facts. It concerns the appropriateness of hospital charges.

Claimant sustained a compensable injury on or about May 12, 1987. That injury caused chronic right lateral epicondylitis. She was therefore confined to the Stamford Hospital [Hospital] from November 21, 1988 through November 23, 1988 for inpatient care. The Hospital calculated its charges on the basis of Connecticut’s All Payor System, the so called Diagnostic Related Group [DRG] as provided in Sec. 19a-165 et seq. The DRG charges were $4,925.09. The Hospital’s billing rate on the basis of itemized charges was calculated as $3,286.83.

Respondent paid the latter sum $3,286.83. The Hospital sought to be paid the DRG amount. The Seventh District agreed with the Hospital.

Tanner v. Walgren Tree Experts, 748 CRD-8-88-7 (decided January 17, 1990) appeal docketed, No. A.C. 8865 (Conn.App. Feb. 2, 1990) is directly on point. In Tanner, we held that appropriate amount was the DRG charge pursuant to Sec. 19a-165f. Consequently, Tanner is dispositive of the issue here raised. Therefore, for all the reasons there set out we affirm the Seventh District.

Commissioners A. Paul Berte’ and Frank Verrilli concur.

image_pdfimage_print