JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)October 11, 2007

T-841 de 2007

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

Reporting justice Clara Inés Vargas Hernández

✓Claimant Ximena Tapias Delporte Vs. Sanitas

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 atención médica
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 y la vida de afiliada a quien la entidad se niega a suministrar stents para la intervencion quirurgica de angioplastia en las arterias carotidas a que sera sometida aduciendo que dichos elementos se encuentran excluidos del pos.solicita se ordene autorizar el suministro de los stents requeridos.hecho superado por haber sido practicado el procedimiento solicitado.carencia actual de objeto por hecho superado

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 (4 points)
  1. PRIMERO. DECLARAR la carencia actual de objeto por existir hecho superado, por las razones expuestas en esta providencia.
  2. SEGUNDO. CONFIRMAR el fallo proferido por el Juzgado Treinta y Seis Penal Municipal de Bogotá.
  3. TERCERO. PREVENIR a la EPS Sanitas, para que en lo sucesivo se abstenga de incurrir en las conductas que dieron origen a la presente acción de tutela.
  4. CUARTO. 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.