Jurinko v. Med Protective Co ( 2008 )

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Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential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 Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
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IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the not precedential opinion in the above-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