CASE NO. 807 CRD-7-89-1Workers’ 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 was waived.
The Stamford Hospital was represented by Griffith H. Trow, Esq., Burdett, Trow Sank, P.C.
The respondents Gardella Trucking and Travelers Insurance Co. were represented by David C. Davis, Esq., McGann, Bartlett Brown.
This Petition for Review from the December 30, 1988 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 appeal concerns the appropriateness of charges for hospital services rendered by the medical provider. The parties’ stipulation of facts was incorporated into the Seventh District Finding and Award.
Claimant sustained a compensable hand injury on January 6, 1987. The injury caused his stay in the Stamford Hospital [Hospital] January 6, 1987 and January 7, 1987. The Hospital’s charges for that stay were calculated on the basis of Connecticut’s All Payor System, the so called Diagnostic Related Group [DRG] as provided in Sec. 19a-165 et seq. Those DRG charges were $14,992.62. The Hospital’s billing rate on the basis of itemized charges was calculated as $3,703.77.
Respondents paid the latter sum, $3,703.77. The Hospital sought to be paid the DRG amount. The Seventh District December 30, 1988 Finding and Award awarded the DRG amount.
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 squarely on point. In Tanner, we held that appropriate amount for which the respondents were liable to the medical provider was the DRG charge as set pursuant to Sec. 19a-165f. Tanner is therefore dispositive of the issue here. Therefore, for the reasons there set down, we affirm the Seventh District.
Commissioner A. Paul Berte’ and Frank Verrilli concur.