Tutela ruling (T)October 5, 2007

T-822 de 2007

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

✓Claimant Amparo Ramirez Parra Vs. Coomeva

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 cirugía de mamoplastia reductora

1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index

Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Derecho a la salud la seguridad social la vida y la dignidad humana de afiliada que padece dorsalgia debido a la hipertrofia de sus senos por lo que le han sigerido una cirugia de mamoplastia de reduccion como unica opcion terapeutica pero la entidad se niea a autorizar dicho procedimiento aduciendo que se encuentra excluido del pos.solicita se ordene autorizar el procedimiento formulado.hecho superado por la practica de la mamoplastia solicitada.carencia actual de objeto por hecho superado

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

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)

Primero. DECLARAR la carencia actual de objeto, en el proceso de acción de tutela de la referencia por tratarse de un hecho superado.
Segundo. CONFIRMAR el fallo proferido por el Juzgado
Segundo. Civil del Circuito de Bucaramanga que resolvió la acción de tutela promovida por Amparo Ramírez Parra en contra de COOMEVA EPS, pero exclusivamente por los motivos expuestos en esta providencia.
Tercero. Por Secretaría General líbrense las comunicaciones previstas en el artículo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.

Verbatim text · source: operative part of the ruling

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.

Appears in the rulingN1 · hard data

✓

Jaime Córdoba Triviño

Reporting justice

✓

Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra

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

Cites45

T-924/06Tutela of 2006 T-902/06Tutela of 2006 T-901/06Tutela of 2006 T-882/06Tutela of 2006 T-871/06Tutela of 2006 T-830/06Tutela of 2006

See all 45 →

Cited by3

T-826/11Tutela of 2011 T-310/10Tutela of 2010 T-517/08Tutela of 2008

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