In Hardiman v. Department of Public Welfare, 121 Pa. Commw. 120, 550 A.2d 590, 594 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988), the Court stated that the "substantive differences between the two benefit programs (Act 632/534 'full salary' and workers' compensation two-thirds of the employee's wages) support to some extent the ... characterization of them as concurrent rather than having a primary and supplemental relationship." The Court also found that compensability under workers' compensation is not necessarily a prerequisite to a cognizable claim under Act 632, and that Act 632 benefits are not to be ended without a due process hearing -- separate and distinct from the workers' compensation proceeding.