the claims without explanation. Respondents argue that any error resulting from Judge Amundson’s participation in this case was harmless because the initial court of appeals’ opinion was unanimous — it was joined by two judges who were not disqualified from hearing the case. The parties cite conflicting caselaw regarding whether an appellate panel’s decision should be vacated when a member whose vote is not decisionally necessary is later shown to be disqualified from participating. See, e.g., Johnson v. Sturdivant, 295 Ark. 663B, 758 S.W.2d 415, 415-16 (1988) (ordering vacatur and recusing the entire Arkansas Supreme Court for the rehearing because one justice with a conflict of interest had participated in a 6-1 decision); Goodheart v. Casey, 523 Pa. 188, 565 A.2d 757, 761-62 (1989) (<HOLDING>). In Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Lavoie, 475
holding that the supreme court of pennsylvania is a state entity for purposes of the eleventh amendment holding that even though petition for allowance of appeal was pending before the pennsylvania supreme court decision remained binding precedent as long as the decision had not been overturned by our supreme court holding that a second judgment controls over an earlier judgment entered in the same case holding that even if two pennsylvania supreme court justices hearing an earlier case had been improperly interested the judgment would not be vacated because the judges participation was mere surplusage in the 61 decision holding that we are required to predict the position which the pennsylvania supreme court would take in resolving this dispute  and in the absence of a clear statement by the pennsylvania supreme court to the contrary or other persuasive evidence of a change in pennsylvania law we are bound by the holdings of previous panels of this court