In Curley v. Dilworth, 96 A.D.2d 903, 466 N.Y.S.2d 79, app. dismissed, 63 N.Y.2d 770, petitioner injured his back as a result of three car accidents, which occurred while he was on duty as a police officer. As a result of his back injury, petitioner stopped reporting to work as of December, 1980. Petitioner's doctor had advised respondents that petitioner was not fit for duty whereas respondents' doctors examined petitioner and found that he was suffering from a mild partial disability and was capable of returning to work and performing light duty. After two additional examinations of petitioner by respondents' doctors, which allegedly substantiated the prior finding that petitioner was capable of performing light duty, petitioner was directed by respondents to return to work on April 6, 1981. During this time period, petitioner was receiving his salary because of the department's characterization of petitioner's illness as ordinary sick time rather than line of duty injury. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's holding that petitioner was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. However, the Appellate Division made clear that the hearing was not to be held pursuant to Civil Service Law 75(2) (which was the ruling of the trial court), but rather, petitioner had to be afforded a hearing pursuant to GML Law 207-c. In that case, the Appellate Division, Second Department followed the rule established by other courts that once a police officer has established prima facie entitlement to GML 207-c benefits, a municipality should provide the police officer with an adversarial hearing prior to denying benefits.