JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)March 4, 2004

T-189 de 2004

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

Reporting justice Jaime Araujo Rentería

✓Claimant Maria Sefora Escalante Montoya Vs Iss Seccional Medellin

✓
Topic · hard data
Derechos A La Salud Y La Vida. Solicitud Practica De Prueba Diagnostica. Requisitos Suministro De Medicamentos Tratamientos No Incluido En El Pos. 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.

Derecho A La Salud
  • Práctica de examen
1 topic · 1 subtopic · 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 (4 points)
  1. Primero. REVOCAR la sentencia proferida el 27 de Agosto de 2003 por el Juzgado Veinte Penal del Circuito de Medellín y en su lugar CONCEDER la tutela de los derechos a la salud en conexidad con la vida de la señora María Sefora Escalante Montoya contra la E.P.S. Instituto de Seguros Sociales Seccional Medellín.
  2. Segundo. ORDENAR a la E.P.S. Instituto de Seguros Sociales Seccional Medellín, que dentro de las cuarenta y ocho (48) horas siguientes a la notificación de este fallo, realice el examen CPRE a la señora MARIA SEFORA ESCALANTE MONTOYA, en la forma prescrita por el médico tratante.
  3. Tercero. Señalar que la EPS Instituto Seguros Sociales- le asiste el derecho de reclamar al FOSYGA los gastos asumidos en la realización del examen prescrito.
  4. Cuarto. LÍBRESE por Secretaría la comunicación de que trata el artículo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991, para los efectos allí contemplados.
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.