Legal Opinion

Baksalary v. Smith

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided August 10, 1988No. Civ. A. No. 76-429PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

LOUIS H. POLLAK, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Paul Sabatine, alleges that defendant, Erie, failed to provide him with a Baksalary special supersedeas hearing in accordance with the Baksalary Consent Decree (approved in Baksalary v. Smith, 591 F.Supp. 1279 (E.D.Pa.1984)). The Consent Decree requires class defendants to provide special supersedeas hearings for class plaintiffs whose workers’ compensation benefits were terminated pursuant to the automatic supersedeas provision of § 413(a) of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. The three-judge panel assigned to the matter referred…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Baksalary v. SmithDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1984

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Appeal of Sabatine (Paul L.)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
  2. Baksalary v. SmithDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Baksalary v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API