Legal Opinion
Baksalary v. Smith
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided February 1, 1984No. Civ. A. 76-429PublishedCited by 49 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LOUIS H. POLLAK, District Judge.
I
Plaintiffs initiated this action in 1976, challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act, Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 77, §§ 1-1031 (Purdon 1952 and Supp.1982). In particular, plaintiffs allege that the “automatic supersedeas” provision of section 413 of the Act, Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 77, § 774 (Purdon Supp.1982), permits employers and insurers to terminate worker’s compensation benefits without according due process of law to those whose benefits are terminated, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Carl Kreschollek v. Southern Stevedoring Company Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company Robert Reich, Individually, and in His Capacity as Secretary of Labor and Industry of the United States of America David Lotz, Individually, and in His Capacity as Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation National Association of Waterfront Employers and the Shipbuilders Council of America, Intervenor-Plaintiff in D.CCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Carlson v. Roetzel & AndressCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2008
- Clark v. McDonald's Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2003
- Beckler v. North Dakota Workers Compensation BureauNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1988
- Williams v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.