as to his alleged inability to perform any police duties due to service-connected injuries. However, the record reveals that petitioner, a tenured police officer of the Suffolk County Police Department since September, 1965, was involved in three automobile accidents while on duty as a police officer resulting in injuries to his lower back. He also claims that since the accident in 1966, he intermittently lost time from work stemming from his job-related injuries. According to police records, on December 10,1980, petitioner did not report to work due to alleged back pains, and has not worked since. During that time he has been under the care of Doctor Melvin M. Fritz, an osteopath, who has stated,
inter alia, that petitioner is not fit for duty at the present time. However, after petitioner was examined in January, 1981, by Dr. Mueller for the Suffolk County Office of Medical Review, he was diagnosed as suffering from a mild partial disability. Doctor Mueller found that petitioner could return to work and perform light duty. However, petitioner, taking the position supported by his doctor that he was physically unable to work, continued to use his accrued vacation time. After a further examination of petitioner in March, 1981, the January, 1981 finding of Dr. Mueller to the effect that he could perform light duty was substantiated. As a result petitioner was directed to return to work on April 6, 1981, and perform light duty. His accrued vacation time expired on April 3, 1981. The record also reveals that since his absence from work, allegedly caused by back pains, commencing on December 10, 1980, petitioner was carried under the department code 301 (ordinary sick time), rather than code 401 (line-of-duty injury). Although we reject Special Term’s determination that petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing under section 75 of the Civil Service Law in this instance, we do believe that he should be afforded a hearing under section
207-c of the General Municipal Law. As has been stated in connection with section 207-a of the same law, a similar statute covering firemen injured in the line of duty, such sections are remedial in nature and were enacted for the benefit of firemen and policemen injured in the line of duty and should be liberally construed in their favor (cf.
Legg v Fitzmaurice, 112 Mise 2d 283, 286). It was adopted by the Legislature in furtherance of public policy to protect policemen injured and disabled while in the performance of their duties (cf.
Pease v Colucci, 59 AD2d 233 ). Since section 207-c is a remedial statute, we disagree with the contention of the appellants that before an administrative evidentiary hearing may be conducted as to a policeman’s claim that he is entitled to line-of-duty benefits, he must first fail to return to duty pursuant to a superior’s directive, and then be notified that as a result of such failure he will no longer be paid, suffer suspension or be removed from office. In essence, petitioner has claimed that by carrying him as a member of the police force only entitled to ordinary sick time (code 301) since December 10, 1980, rather than as a member injured in the line of duty (code 401), and compelling him to use his accrued vacation time, appellants are denying him benefits to which he is entitled under section
207-c of the General Municipal Law. Thus we hold he is entitled to a hearing with counsel participating and cross-examination of appellants’ witnesses, and the presentation of his own evidence, as to the entitlement of full wages under such statute. We also are of the opinion that at such a hearing appellants may adduce evidence that even though petitioner’s injuries may be job related, he is still fit to perform light duty assigned to him (see
Pánico v Young, 62 AD2d 1051 , mot for lv to app den 46 NY2d 847 ). At the ensuing hearing, evidence may be adduced on the issues of fact as to (1) whether petitioner’s present disability resulted from occupational injuries, thus normally entitling him to benefits set forth in section
207-c of the General Municipal Law, and (2) whether, despite his infirmities, he is capable of returning to work and performing light police duty as directed by his commanding officer on March