Court Opinion

ID: 9732267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:13:41.13357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:25.705092
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I disagree with the majority in reversing the arbitration award that granted pension benefits to Newtown Township police officers who are disabled by non-service related injuries. I believe the award was lawful and proper and I would affirm that portion of the Commonwealth Court’s order upholding the granting of benefits.
In Appeal of Stanton, 499 Pa. 151, 452 A.2d 496 (1982) we faced a similar issue. There the question was whether the widow of a firefighter who was killed in a non-job related incident, was entitled to pension benefits. In decid*580ing that question we were called upon to construe Section 4321 of the Third Class City Code which provides:
Upon the death of a member who retires on pension or is killed in the service on or after January 1, 1960, or who dies in the service on or after January 1, 1968, payments as hereinafter provided shall be made to his widow ...
Act of June 23, 1981, P.L. 932, 23 amended by the Act of July 20, 1968, P.L. 434, No. 204 (emphasis added) We held in Stanton that the phrase “who dies in the service” means a member who dies while employed by the fire department. We held that the Code did not require that the firefighter’s death be job-related for his widow to relieve pension benefits.
' In the present case the relevant statutory provision is Section 771 of the Police Pension Fund Act (Act 600) which provides in pertinent part:
In the case of the payment of pensions for permanent injuries incurred in service and to families of members killed in service____
53 P.S. § 771 (emphasis added) The majority, in reversing the benefits award, in this case, does so on the basis that the phrase “in service” as used in Act 600 means something different from the phrase “in the service” which appears in the Third Class City Code and which we construed in Stanton. According to the majority, “in service” means that, for benefits to be payable, a police officer must be injured while performing his employment duties. The majority distinguishes its conclusion here with our holding in Stanton by pointing to the article “the” found in the phrase “in the service”. The majority’s distinction is flawed. There is no difference in the meaning of the phrases: “in the service” and “in service” as used in the two statutes. I would hold that, similar to our construction in Stanton, “in service” as used in Act 600 means that police officers who are injured while in the employ of the police department are entitled to benefits. I, therefore, dissent to that part of the majority opinion which holds otherwise.
*581As to the remaining issues, I join with the majority in affirming the portion of the award granting disability benefits in the amount of 65 per cent of the officer’s monthly salary, and in permitting a reduction of the retirement age from 55 to 53 years of age if an actuarial study determines that the reduction is feasible.
PAPADAKOS, J., joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.