In re: Appeal of Khan ~ Appeal of: A. Khan
396 C.D. 2024
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Amjad Khan, a Philadelphia police officer, was injured in a car accident during duty and initially received Heart and Lung Act benefits for temporary work-related disability.
- After his injury, Khan transitioned between several City panel physicians, with some non-panel provider visits, eventually returning to work at light or full duty intermittently.
- Multiple physicians, including IME and panel providers, ultimately found Khan at maximum medical improvement, with his injury deemed no longer temporary but chronic.
- The City moved to terminate Khan’s Heart and Lung Act benefits, ultimately successful before the Board of Arbitration, on the grounds that his injury was no longer temporary.
- Khan appealed the Board’s decision, raising constitutional, jurisdictional, evidentiary, and due process arguments, which were rejected at the trial court and Commonwealth Court levels.
- Both the Heart and Lung process and the Board itself were established via collective bargaining between the City and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), binding all members, including Khan.
Issues
| Issue | Khan's Argument | City's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review—Act 111 or Administrative Agency Law? | Board is a local agency; review should be plenary and per Administrative Agency Law. | Board is Act 111 arbitration panel; review is narrow certiorari only. | Court upheld narrow certiorari review; Board not an admin agency. |
| Board failed to address all issues and provide explanation? | Board and trial court failed to fully address arguments and provide reasoned decision per Admin Agency Law. | Board followed agreed protocols; not required to address every issue beyond narrow certiorari limits. | Arguments undeveloped or waived; Board's process sufficient. |
| Due process & constitutional challenge to arbitration protocols | Protocols restrict access to medical evidence/expert witnesses, breaching due process. | Protocols are outcome of collective bargaining with FOP and are binding; procedures are constitutional. | Procedures constitutional; Khan bound by collectively-bargained rules. |
| Evidentiary Rulings (Hearsay, cross-exam, illegible notes) | Hearsay in medical records should have been excluded; restricted opportunity to cross-examine. | Rules of evidence in labor arbitration permit such evidence; protocols allow deposition if desired. | Arbitrator appropriately admitted evidence; Khan failed to depose witnesses as allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Phila. v. Fraternal Ord. of Police Lodge No. 5, 985 A.2d 1259 (Pa. 2009) (explains the narrow certiorari review for Act 111 arbitration)
- Pa. State Police v. Pa. State Troopers’ Ass’n, 656 A.2d 83 (Pa. 1995) (grievance arbitration under Act 111 subject to narrow certiorari review)
- Shaw v. Twp. of Aston, 919 A.2d 303 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (Heart and Lung benefits disputes may be resolved through collectively bargained arbitration)
- AFSCME Dist. Council 88 v. Cnty. of Lehigh, 798 A.2d 804 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (arbitrators not bound by strict rules of evidence; hearsay admissible)
- Cunningham v. Pa. State Police, 507 A.2d 40 (Pa. 1986) (Heart and Lung benefits cease when disability is no longer temporary)