Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BOARD PENSIONS AND RETIREMENT CITY PHILADELPHIA v. HARRY R. HODGE (02/15/83)

decided: February 15, 1983.

BOARD OF PENSIONS AND RETIREMENT OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, APPELLANT
v.
HARRY R. HODGE, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of Harry R. Hodge v. Board of Pensions and Retirement, No. 4969 June Term, 1978.

COUNSEL

Alan J. Davis, City Solicitor, with him Jill A. Douthett, Deputy City Solicitor, and Janet Stern Holcombe, Assistant City Solicitor, for appellant.

Thomas F. McDevitt, for appellee.

Judges Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 72 Pa. Commw. Page 60]

The Board of Pensions and Retirement of the City of Philadelphia appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County which reversed and remanded a decision of the board denying benefits to Harry A. Hodge.

In March of 1978, Hodge, a former city employee who had injured himself while working, applied to the

[ 72 Pa. Commw. Page 61]

    board for a service connected disability pension. The board met May 25, 1978 and denied Hodge's application. Hodge appealed the denial to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, which, after reviewing the record, reversed the decision and remanded the case to the board with instructions that Hodge "be afforded reasonable notice of a hearing and opportunity to be heard" and that Hodge "be examined by a Medical Panel composed of three qualified physicians in accordance with Section 117.1 of the Philadelphia Retirement System Ordinance . . ."

The board does not here challenge the trial court's instruction that on remand Hodge is entitled to due process protections, but it does appeal that part of the instructions that requires a panel of three doctors to examine Hodge.

Although the issue was not raised by Hodge, we note sua sponte the interlocutory nature of the trial court's order remanding the case to the board. An order of a trial court remanding a case is normally interlocutory and not appealable.*fn1 Because there is no final order, we find ourselves to be without jurisdiction and therefore must quash this appeal as interlocutory.*fn2

We do note, however, that the trial court's remand is appropriate because the record of the board's proceedings was incomplete. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.