Legal Opinion

Sullivan v. Barnett

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided March 13, 1998No. 96-2140UnknownCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

GARTH, Circuit Judge:

The issue we must address on this appeal is whether Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 531(5) and (6) (West Supp.1997), which provides for the su-persedeas of an employee’s medical benefits without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, violates the requisites of procedural due process. We hold that it does. Accordingly, we reverse.

I

The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act (“the Act”), 77 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 1 et seq., establishes a compulsory insurance system for employers that provides compensation to employees who…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Richardson v. PeralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. West v. AtkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Sullivan v. BarnettCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
  2. Carter v. City of PhiladelphiaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1998
  3. Allyn Shane Doyle A/K/A Shane Doyle v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API