Norwich bulletin., 1921-10-20

communities. the cost of living and the | facilities employed by physicians in the practice of their profession on the whole were somewhat less in New London than in any other cities mentioned.
 The Lewis case mentioned above was cited by the insurer-respondent who also submitted the testimony of Dr. Maher. the Aetna adjuster who made a very full investigation of the. cost of living in the cities mentioned in connection with the hearing on the Lewis. case. After giving same due consideration and also consid- ering the particular features in the pres ent case, the conclusion stated in the finding of this case has been reached.
 The second case was that of Charles Warrington, 21 Hamilton St., New Lon don, claimant vs the Babcocl1 Printing Press Co.,, of New London. May 16tE Mir Worthington was injured and lost the ends of two fingers. His weekly wages were found to be $24.S6.
 In his finding the commissioner says:
 On the day in question claimant had the ends of two fingers cut off by cir cular saw, which injury incapacitated him for a week. As his disability did not extend beyond the waiting period no claim is made for compensation on the part of the injured employe. It is found that first aid treatment was rendered the claimant on the day of the injury by Dr. George P. Cheney for which a charge of S5 was made. The doctor also dressed the fing- CTS on May 17th, 18th and 20th. charging s for each dressing, the total amount of the medical bill as rendered being $14. The main facts in the case are agreed to and the only question in dispute is the amount of the medical bill as rendered by the attending physician and the hear 1 ing was requestion by pr. Cheney that the reasQnableness of his bill for services rendered in the present case might be l Hassed upon. As it is found that this 1 first dressing was simple ordinary dress | ing of the type which is constantly being rendered In minor surgical cases. I find 1 the charge of $5 for the first dressing was reasonable. The subsequent dress 1 ings charged at s3 each I find should not be charged more than $2 as all dressings | were made at the doctors office. There fore, total bill in the present case of
 S11 instead of s14 is hereby approved
 Two Norwich physicians testified al this hearing after hearing the injury des- cribed and the doctors statement con
 cerning treatments rendered, that the
 charges which they would make for sim
 liar dressings after the first call would
 be S2 each
 The third case is that of Sam Muscarel
 To- Shaw street, New London, vs Eyer!
 Bros. of New London. It is found tha
 on June End last the claimant ran hi
 hand and lrm into a barrel of flour ant
 was bitten by a. rat, the employe receiv
 ing five distinct bites, two of them bein.
 quite deep decorations First aid wa
 rendered by Dr. Cheney and the employ
 resumed work the same day, so that ther
 is no compensation claimed on a disabil
 ity bases, the only question in dispute be
 ing the medical bill
 The physician rendered bill amount ing to So. It is found that the dressing were all of an ordinary character an were all made at the doctors office Tn , bill was made up as follows: Cauterizin dressing s4; dressing, B ordinary offic
 call S2. From the testimony introduce at the hearing by two Norwich physician it is found that their charge for the frs dressing would have been s3 and g eac
 for subsequent office dressings. This el r idence was given after the Norwich phy