Greiner et al. & VMMC v. Pratt Associates et al.

CASE NO. 2000 CRB-8-94-3

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

APRIL 12, 1995

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

APPEARANCES:

The claimant did not appear.

The medical provider was represented by Houston Putnam Lowry, Esq. and Thomas P. Malnati, Esq., Brown & Welsh, P. C., P.O. Box 183, 100 Hanover Street, Meriden, CT 06450.

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.

CASE NO. 1999 CRB-8-94-3

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

APRIL 12, 1995

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

APPEARANCES:

The claimant did not appear.

The medical provider was represented by Houston Putnam Lowry, Esq. and Thomas P. Malnati, Esq., Brown & Welsh, P. C., P.O. Box 183, 100 Hanover Street, Meriden, CT 06450.

The respondents did not appear.

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.

CASE NO. 1998 CRB-8-94-3

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

APRIL 12, 1995

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

APPEARANCES:

The claimant did not appear.

The medical provider was represented by Houston Putnam Lowry, Esq. and Thomas P. Malnati, Esq., Brown & Welsh, P. C., P.O. Box 183, 100 Hanover Street, Meriden, CT 06450.

The respondents did not appear.

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 in Baigert, id., are equally applicable to the instant claims as virtually the identical issue is raised in these appeals. In Baigert, 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. 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 Code of Ethics for Workers’ Compensation Commissioners provides in §12 that a commissioner “should not permit improper ex parte communications. However, ex parte communications may be appropriate in relation to purely procedural matters....” BACK TO TEXT