Norwich bulletin., 1915-07-01
DIsAPPRoVEs HOSPITAL CHARGE FOR OPERATION.
In Compensation Case Where Patients
 Was in General Ward,

George E. Beers, compensation commissioner for the third district, who acted for Commissioner Donohue of this district at the hearings on June 18th has given his decisions in these, making a ruling that is of in terest because he rules against a hos pital charge of $100 for an operation which he claims is only made be- cause it was workmens compensa- ton case in which the employer was to pay the bill.
 Solely upon the ground that the workmen's compensation act does not contemplate that the employer shall pay more than the general public pays for the the sort of service rendered Acting Commissioner Beers disap- proves the bill of $100 from Dr. Dan- iel Sullivan of New London for an op- eration for hernia upon William Ma lone of 58 Jefferson avenue, New Lon- don. who was injured on February 4, 1914, while in the employ of H. R. Douglass Co.,, Inc
 The commissioner states that there can be no criticisb of the faithfulness and intelligence of the physician in this case, or of the reasonablenes of the bill in the abstract, but under the existing circumstances he cannot ap- prove the bill.
 In his memorandum with the deci- sion, Commissioner Beers says that
 
 to whether the charge of the physician is a proper one against the employer or the insurer. So far as the amount is concerned it is not a subject for
 criticism, as the evidence shows that had the operation been performed up-
 on a patient of the standard of living of the claimant who was occupying a
 private room in the Lawrence hospi- tai at New London and had the em- ploye himself been paying the bills, it
 would have been a proper amount The evidence, however, established the additional fact that 1t is usual for workmen of the standard of living of the claimant in this case, when. bills are being paid by the injured person, to go into the public ward where the payments made by them-whieh in no
 case exceed S10 per week-cover the
 cost of any operations that may be involved.
 This hospital receives into its pub lie wards the public generally, and in no cases other than cases which arise
 where there is temporary lack of accommodation for private room cases. is there higher charge made with the sole exception of compensa- tion cases, where it seeks to exast a
 payment for operations.
 There is no good reason why em- ployers should be objects of charity and there Is likewise no good reason why the general public should be the recipient of indiscriminate charity. As a matter of fact the hospital ser vice, at less than cost is thrown open to the public generally in much the same way that the educational ad- vantages of schools and colleges are thrown open to the public at less than cost.
 We are not concerned herewith what would have been the result had the Injured employe, by his own insistehce
 been placed@in a private room; nor the question Of how the law would have regarded the status of a special ward provided for patients who could pay in point of fact, and for com pensation cases, in which ward . charge was made for operations.
 As matter of fact the injured per- son was not put Into g. private room or into any such supposed ward and we have the bald proposition before us
 of whether in room where the gen.