Appeals from the Orders of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas in case of Michael L. Serge v. The City of Scranton, The Director of Public Safety of the City of Scranton, and the Chief of Police, No. 84 Equity 24, and in case of Michael L. Serge v. The City of Scranton, No. 84 Civil 1424.
Peter G. Loftus, for appellant.
Carlene R. Gallo, with her, Michael J. Marrazzo, for appellee.
Thomas H. Kohn, with him, Thomas W. Jennings, Sagot & Jennings, for Amicus Curiae, Fire Fighters Local Union No. 669.
Anthony C. Busillo, II, Mancke, Lightman & Wagner, for Amicus Curiae, Police Officers, D'Amico, Burrin and Ozovek.
Judge Colins, and Senior Judges Barbieri and Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Narick.
[ 108 Pa. Commw. Page 489]
This is an appeal by Michael Serge (Appellant)*fn1 from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna
[ 108 Pa. Commw. Page 490]
County granting the City of Scranton's (City) motion for summary judgment. We reverse.
The facts are not in dispute. Appellant is a police officer employed by the City of Scranton, a second class city. On or about April 28, 1983, Appellant was injured during the course of duty while attempting to effectuate an arrest. As a result of this injury, Appellant was unable to return to work until April 29, 1985. The City paid Appellant his full salary and benefits for the initial year of his disability, or April 29, 1984. However, after the expiration of this one year period, the City terminated payments and placed Appellant on workers' compensation until his return to work on April 29, 1985.
On March 29, 1984, Appellant filed a complaint in assumpsit against the City requesting his full salary and benefits; and on April 27, 1984 Appellant filed an equity action requesting that the City be enjoined from: (1) denying Appellant his salary and benefits during his disability; (2) placing Appellant on sick leave without pay; (3) terminating Appellant from his employment; and (4) placing Appellant on workers' compensation.
The issue before us for consideration involves the correct interpretation of the Act of June 12, 1913, P.L. 492, § 1, 53 P.S. § 631 (hereinafter Section 631) and the Act of June 28, 1935, P.L. 477, § 1, 53 P.S. § 637, as amended, 53 P.S. § 637(a) (Supp. 1987-1988) (hereinafter Section 637).*fn2 Thus, we must determine whether Appellant was entitled to receive his full ...