JOSETTE GHIZZONI, CLAIMANT-APPELLEE and STAMFORD HOSPITAL, MEDICAL PROVIDER v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, EMPLOYER and ELECTRIC MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURER, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS

CASE NO. 837-CRD-7-89-3Workers’ Compensation Commission
MAY 24, 1990

The appeal in the above matter concerned issues between Stamford Hospital and the Respondents. 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 waived.

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

The respondents were represented by Edward S. Downes, Jr., Esq.

This Petition for Review from the March 13, 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 Commission Chairman, John Arcudi, and 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 in the instant matter sustained a compensable injury on November 2, 1987, a herniated disc at L5-S1. The injury resulted in the claimant’s admission to the Stamford Hospital [Hospital] from November 2, 1987 through November 6, 1987. 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 $9,800.59. The Hospital’s billing rate on the basis of itemized charges would have been $8,067.21.

Respondents paid the Hospital the latter amount, $8,067.21. 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 the 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.