Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

12-30-2008

Jurinko v. Med Protective Co Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-3519

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

Recommended Citation "Jurinko v. Med Protective Co" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 32. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/32

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Nos. 06-3519 & 06-3666

STEPHEN P. JURINKO; CYNTHIA JURINKO, H/W as assignees of Paul G. Marcincin, Appellants at 06-3666

v.

THE MEDICAL PROTECTIVE COMPANY; MEDICAL CARE AVAILABILITY AND REDUCTION OF ERROR FUND, Successor in interest to or formerly known as Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund

Medical Protective Company, Appellant at 06-3519

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania D.C. Civil Action No. 03-cv-4053 (Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe)

Argued January 17, 2008 Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, BARRY * and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the not precedential opinion in the above- captioned case, filed December 24, 2008, be amended as follows:

* The Honorable Maryanne Trump Barry participated in the oral argument but discovered facts causing her to recuse from this matter prior to filing of the Opinion. The remaining judges are unanimous in this decision, and this Opinion and Judgment are therefore being filed by a quorum of the panel. Page 28, footnote 15, last full sentence, which read: However, the Court again said that, when punitive damages are substantial, “the constitutional outer limit may well be 1:1.” Id. at 2634 n.28. shall read: However, the Court again said that, when compensatory damages are substantial, “the constitutional outer limit may well be 1:1.” Id. at 2634 n.28.

BY THE COURT,

/s/ Anthony J. Scirica Chief Judge

DATED: December 30, 2008

2