JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)January 31, 2008

T-074 de 2008

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

Reporting justice Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa

✓Claimant Jorge William Muñoz Zapata·Respondent Alberto Velasquez Uribe

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.

Acción De Tutela
  • Hecho superado por cuanto la cirugía para el cambio de válvula fonatoria Pro Vox ya fue realizado al paciente
  • Cirugía para cambio de válvula fonatoria Pro Vox por EPS
1 topic · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Derecho a la salud en conexidad con la vida de persona que le solicita a su medico tratante la debida atencion medica consistente en la instalacion de valvula que requiere, la cual, aun no ha sido realizada. <br>solicita se ordene practicar el procedimiento de instalacion de la valvula.

Accion de tutela contra un particular.<br>hecho superado por cuanto la cirugia fue realizada por otro medico distinto al accionado en la presente accion de amparo constitucional.<br>carencia actual de objeto

Case-law reporter's text · normalized for reading (all caps → sentence case)
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.

  1. Primero. Confirmar la sentencia proferida por el Juzgado Dieciséis Penal Municipal con Función de Control de Garantías de Medellín.
  2. Segundo. Declarar la carencia de objeto, en el proceso de acción de tutela de la referencia.
  3. Tercero. 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.