JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)September 25, 2003

T-849 de 2003

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

Reporting justice Alvaro Tafur Galvis

✓Claimant Madelin Hernandez Coneo Vs. Hospital Naval De Cartagena

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho A La Salud E Integridad De Beneficiaria. Solicitud Tratamiento Odontologico De Periodontitis Aguda De Carácter Funcional Y No Estetico No Incluido En El Pos. Continuidad En La Prestacion Del Servicio Medico. Principio De La Confianza Legitima. Con
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
  • Vulneración por no prestación oportuna de atención médica ordenada
  • Vulneración por tardanza en tratamiento por vencimiento de contrato
1 topic · 2 subtopics · 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, por las razones expuestas la sentencia proferida el 20 de marzo de 2003 por el Juzgado
  2. Cuarto. Civil Municipal de Cartagena y en su lugar CONCEDER la protección solicitada por la señora Madelín Hernández Coneo.
  3. Segundo. ORDENAR al Hospital Naval de Cartagena, que si aún no lo ha hecho, en el término de 48 horas contadas a partir de la notificación del presente fallo proceda a realizar las diligencias necesarias para continuar con el tratamiento odontológico que requiere la demandante.
  4. Tercero. Por Secretaría, líbrese 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.