JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)January 22, 2001

T-041A de 2001

The official text of this ruling is in Spanish and is shown as published by the Colombian authorities.

Reporting justice Fabio Morón Díaz

✓Claimant Rosa Yacqueline Montañez Cruz Vs. Sanitas Internacional

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho A La Vida Salud Y Seguridad Social. Suministro Tratamiento De Quimioterapia Por Tumor Ovarico. Concedida.
01

Topics and subtopics of the ruling

✓What the ruling decides and analyzes, as indexed by the Court's case-law reporter's office. Each topic links to every decision that addresses it.

Enfermedades Catastroficas O Ruinosas
  • Tratamiento de quimioterapia por EPS
Entidad Promotora De Salud
  • Repetición contra el FOSYGA
Derecho A La Salud
  • Fundamental por conexidad con la vida
  • Tratamiento de quimioterapia sin cumplir periodo mínimo de cotización
3 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
02

What it decided

This decision records no constitutional review holdings. This is common in tutela rulings and orders, where the decision does not concern a legal provision.
·

Operative part (Resuelve)

✓Verbatim text of the decision, as it appears in the ruling. It complements the structured holdings above.

See the operative part (2 points)
  1. Primero. Revocar el fallo proferido por la Sala Penal del Tribunal Superior de Bogotá, mediante el cual se negó la protección de los derechos invocados por el accionante. En consecuencia, se Concede la tutela, y se Ordena a la E.P.S. Sanitas, que en el término de diez (10) días contados a partir de la notificación del presente fallo, si aún no lo ha hecho, proceda a brindar el tratamiento de quimioterapia requerido por la actora, pudiendo repetir contra el Fondo de Solidaridad y Garantías por aquellas sumas que excedan de las equivalentes al número de semanas cotizadas por la actora.
  2. Segundo. Por Secretaría, líbrese la comunicación prevista en el artículo 36 del decreto 2591 de 1991.
Verbatim text · source: operative part of the ruling
03

The bench that decided

We distinguish who appears in the ruling (signature, vote or concurrence) from who probably sat on the Court on that date. The difference is shown by color and shape.

04

How it connects

Each decision is a node in the case-law network: it cites some and is cited by others. Follow the threads.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.