CASE NO. 1050 CRD-2-90-6Workers’ Compensation Commission
FEBRUARY 7, 1991
The appeal in the above matter concerned issues between Day Kimball Hospital and the Respondents. Therefore, no appearance on behalf of the claimant was necessary.
Day Kimball Hospital was represented by Thomas Riley, Esq., Dupont, Tobin, Levin, Carberry O’Malley, P.C..
The respondent was represented by Jonathan F. Reik, Esq., McGann, Bartlett Brown.
This Petition for Review from the June 11, 1990 Finding and Award of the Commissioner for the Second District was heard January 25, 1991 before a compensation Review Division panel consisting of the Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and commissioners Andrew P. Denuzze, and Michael S. Sherman.
OPINION
JOHN ARCUDI, CHAIRMAN.
Respondents present various reasons of appeal for our review. The issues presented are as follows: (1)whether the trial commissioner erred in applying Sec. 19a-165 et seq. to the instant matter as the date of injury was September 6, 1986 and preceded the DRG legislation, (2)whether the trial commissioner erred in failing to rule on Motion to Quash a Subpoena served upon the hospital in the instant matter as to the evidence of actual costs of the hospital in rendering services, and (3)whether the appeal can be properly reviewed where the transcript of the June 28, 1988 formal hearing at which Susan Stanley of the Commission on Hospitals and Health Care testified is of such poor quality that is not usable.
Clearly our decision in Tanner v. Walgren Tree Experts, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 16, 748 CRD-8-88-7 (1990) [hereinafter referred to as Tanner] and its progeny is binding authority supporting the trial commissioner in his ruling as to the applicability of Sec. 19a-165 et seq. See also, Gervais v. Atlantic Builders, 8 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 120, 1046 CRD-2-90-6
(1990).
In Tanner we held, inter alia, that under Sec. 31-294
C.S.G. and this commission’s custom and practice, costs for hospital services are limited to the prevailing community standard. We then concluded that the DRG rate provided by Sec. 19a-165 was a means of determining the prevailing community standard under Sec. 31-294 and thus, we found a “reasonable field of operation” for both statutes. See, tanner at 5 citing Windham First Taxing District v. Windham, 208 Conn. 543-4 (1988).
However, in the instant matter the respondent contends, in essence, that their right to present evidence as to other means by which the prevailing community standard may be calculated was impaired. Certainly, without a proper transcript of the June 28, 1988 hearing it is impossible to review the record on appeal. We, therefore, must remand the instant matter on that basis alone. See, Case v. McClinch Crane, 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 92, 727 CRD-7-88-4 (1990).
Having concluded that as we have, we need not consider any of the other issues raised on appeal.
Commissioners Andrew P. Denuzze and Michael S. Sherman concur.