JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)June 18, 2003

T-504 de 2003

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

Reporting justice Alfredo Beltrán Sierra

✓Claimant Gilberto Hernandez Ramirez Vs. Cajanal Risaralda

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho A La Salud De Cotizante. Solicitud Remision Para Valoracion Con Especialista. Prescrita Por Medico Tratante. Realizacion Examenes Diagnosticos. Falta De Contratos Con Ips. 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
  • Trámites internos de la entidad prestadora del servicio no pueden afectarlo
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. REVOCASE el fallo proferido por el Juzgado
  2. Primero. de Familia de Pereira el 25 de marzo de 2003, dentro del proceso de tutela instaurado por el senor Gilberto Hernandez Ramirez contra Cajanal Seccional Risaralda por las razones expuestas en la parte motiva de este fallo.
  3. Segundo. En consecuencia, CONCEDASE la proteccion del derecho a la salud conculcado y ORDENASE a Cajanal, si no lo hubiere hecho, que en el termino de cuarenta y ocho (48) horas siguientes a la notificacion de esta sentencia, contrate con una IPS para que se lleve a cabo la evaluacion por especialista requerida por el actor y que fue ordenada por el medico tratante.
  4. Tercero. Por Secretaria General, librense las comunicaciones de que trata el articulo 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.