any impediment to federal jurisdiction in this case. Mattos struck down the section of the Act giving the arbitration panels exclusive jurisdiction over medical malpractice cases, and, therefore, the Act cannot, under any construction, impede a federal court from assuming jurisdiction. The issue of whether Mattos is applicable to cases on appeal at the time of the decision has been resolved by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s application of that decision to cases on appeal in the state court system at the time it was filed. See Gregory v. Hazleton State General Hospital, — Pa. -, 421 A.2d 1045 (1980) (vacating case in light of Mattos); Iannachione v. Kreinbrook, - Pa. -, 421 A.2d 1045 (1980). (companion case) (same). See generally Gibson v. Commonwealth, -Pa.-, 415 A.2d 80, 84 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we conclude that the Act cannot be
holding retroactive a pennsylvania case abrogating common law sovereign immunity holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity holding that a patent is property for purposes of the fourteenth amendment and that remedial legislation abrogating state sovereign immunity under seminole is constitutional holding that as a general rule interlocutory trial court orders rejecting defenses of common law sovereign immunity governmental immunity public official immunity statutory immunity or any other type of immunity are not appealable under the maryland collateral order doctrine holding that the act is retroactive