: August 28, 1980.
TOWN COURT NURSING CENTER, INC. AND EMMA COOPER, MARY CRAWFORD, HAZEL KEMP, ARNOLD L. PHILLIPS, DELPHINE TADDEI, NANCY TRUITT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS OF PATIENTS ELIGIBLE FOR PENNSYLVANIA MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM BENEFITS AT TOWN COURT NURSING CENTER, INC.
HELEN O'BANNON, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND JOSEPH A. CALIFANO, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE; APPEAL OF EMMA COOPER, MARY CRAWFORD, HAZEL KEMP, ARNOLD L. PHILLIPS, DELPHINE TADDEI AND NANCY TRUITT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS OF PATIENTS ELIGIBLE FOR PENNSYLVANIA MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM BENEFITS AT TOWN COURT NURSING CENTER, INC.
Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; John P. Fullam, Judge.
Before Seitz, Chief Judge, and Aldisert, Adams, Gibbons, Rosenn, Hunter, Weis, Garth and Higginbotham, Circuit Judges.
Author: Per Curiam
Opinion OF THE COURT
When this case was previously before us, Town Court Nursing Center, Inc. v. Beal, 586 F.2d 280 (3d Cir. 1978), we concluded that the appellants, six residents at the Town Court Nursing Center, had a constitutionally protected property interest in continued residence at Town Court that gave them a right to a pretermination hearing. We therefore vacated a district court order which denied appellants' request for an extension of portions of a preliminary injunction entered during an earlier phase of the litigation. Thereafter, the Supreme Court, acting on petition of Pennsylvania Secretary of Public Welfare, accepted certiorari and in O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, Inc., 447 U.S. 773, 100 S. Ct. 2467, 65 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1980), reversed our judgment and remanded the cause to us for further proceedings in conformity with its opinion. The Court held that enforcement by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare of their valid regulations did not directly affect appellants' legal rights or deprive them of any constitutionally protected interest in life, liberty or property.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Supreme Court's opinion, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.