JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)October 31, 2008

T-1074 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 Carlos Antonio Ramírez·Respondent Sanitas Eps

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.

Derecho A La Salud
  • Suministro de audífonos por EPS
2 topics · 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 por la negativa de la eps de autorizar la implantación de un audífono que le fue ordenado por su médico tratante, con el argumento que se encuentra excluído del pos y que él no tiene medios económicos para sumir el costo.

La corte considera que sanitas vulneró el derecho del accionante y por lo tanto se ordenará autorizar el suministro e implantación de los audífonos.

Concedida.

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.

See the operative part (5 points)
  1. Primero. Confirmar la sentencia proferida por el Juzgado
  2. Segundo. Civil Municipal de Honda, del dos de abril de dos mil ocho, dentro del proceso de acción de tutela de Carlos Antonio Ramírez Guerrero.
  3. Segundo. El Juzgado
  4. Segundo. Civil Municipal de Honda notificará esta sentencia dentro del término de cinco días después de haber recibido la comunicación, de conformidad con el artículo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.
  5. Tercero. Líbrese por Secretaría General 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.