Opinion by
Paul M. Ciccimaro (Appellant) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas оf Philadelphia County which affirmed an order of the Philadelphia Civil Service Commission (Commission) denying disаbility benefits to Appellant under Philadelphia Civil Service Regulation 32.
Appellant was a fire fighter for the City of Philadelphia (Appellee) who injured his back on January 16, 1985 when transporting a pаtient to a rescue squad vehicle. He was placed on injured-on-duty status and received full wages in lieu of workmens compensation. He received treatment at the City’s Compensation Clinic until March 25, 1985 when he was ordered to perform light duty. After one and one-half days, he ceased working because of pain and was again placed on inactive status with benefits. He was again ordered to light duty on April 1, 1985; he worked for a short time that day, and requested another referral to the Compensation Clinic. He was placed on no duty status, and began a course of рhysical therapy treatment. On July 22, 1985, he was examined by a doctor at the Compensa *576 tion Clinic and again ordered to perform light duty. He refused to return to work because of continuing pain. Benefits ceased, and appellant exercised his option to appeal under Civil Sеrvice Regulation 32.11. Following a hearing, the Commission denied benefits. The trial court, without taking additionаl evidence, affirmed.
Our scope of review where the trial court has limited itself to the reсord before the Commission is to determine whether the Commissions order violated Appellants сonstitutional rights, whether the Commission manifestly abused its discretion or committed an error of law, or whеther its decision was not based upon substantial evidence.
Fitzgerald v. Philadelphia Civil Service Commission,
Regulation 32 is similar in intent and form to The Pеnnsylvania Workmens Compensation Act (Act)
1
and this Court has held that the principles enunciated in intеrpreting the Act will apply to Regulation 32 where similar substantive issues are involved.
Smith v. Civil Service Commission, City of Philadelphia,
Appellant first argues that the Commission committed an error of law in not holding Appellee collaterally еstopped from terminating his disability benefits by virtue of the existence of a Notice of Compensation Payable filed in a related action under the Act. However, as Appellee correctly points out, Appellant failed to raise that issue before the Commission. We are, therefore, precluded from considering it on appeal.
Secondly, Appellant argues that the Commission improperly placed upon him the burden of proving that he could not rеturn to work. When we consider this argu
*577
ment in terms of the applicable precedents establishеd under workmens compensation law, as required by
Hays
and its progeny, we are convinced that the Commission has committed an error of law. Appellant was not seeking to gain benefits under Regulаtion 32,
2
but rather to retain them. Conversely, Appellee sought to terminate those benefits on the grounds that Appellants disability had ended or was reduced. It has long been the law in the analogоus situation in workmens compensation cases that an employer seeking to terminate benefits bears the burden of proving that a claimants disability has ended or has been reduced.
Coastal Tank Lines, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Swick),
Because the Commission improperly placed the burden of proof on Appellant, we must reverse its order and remand for findings on the issues of (1) whether Appellee has sustained its burden of proving that Appellant is no longer totally disablеd, 3 and (2) whether Appellee has sustained its burden of proving there is work available which Appellant is capable of performing. 4
*578 In light of our cоnclusion to remand for error of law, we need not consider Appellants remaining arguments.
Order
And Nоw, this 30th day of October, 1987, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, dated December 11, 1986, is reversed and remanded for findings consistent with the foregoing opinion. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Notes
Act of June 2, 1915, P. L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§1-1603.
It is clear that in such a case, the person claiming benefits would bear the burden of proof.
See, e.g., Knowles v. Civil Service Commission of the City of Philadelphia,
By virtue of the fact that Appelleе placed Appellant on “injured-on-duty” status, it has admitted both the disability and its service connection. Thus, neither the existence of the injury, nor its causation are at issue, both of which were discussed in the Commissions original adjudication.
The Commission foiled to make findings on this important issue. While it found Apрellant to be sufficiently recovered to *578 return to a light duty assignment, it restricted that assignment to one not involving repetitive bending or heavy lifting. Whether the filing duties to which Appellant was assigned meet these criteria was not considered by the Commission.