JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)October 31, 2002

T-942 de 2002

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

Reporting justice Alfredo Beltrán Sierra

✓Claimant Elizabeth Castaño Herrera Vs. Emssanar Valle

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho A La Salud. Suministro Insumos Necesarios Para Practica De Cirugia En Ojo Izquierdo No Incluidos En El Pos. Continuidad En La Prestacion Del Servicio. Deber De Informar. 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.

Administradora Del Regimen Subsidiado
  • Información al afiliado sobre posibilidad de atención en servicio no incluido en POS
  • Coordinación entrega de insumos excluidos del POS requeridos para cirugía
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 (5 points)
  1. Primero. REVOCAR la sentencia proferida por el Juzgado
  2. Tercero. Penal Municipal de Cali y, en su lugar, CONCEDER la tutela impetrada por la señora Elizabeth Castaño Herrera.
  3. Segundo. ORDENAR a la ARS EMSSANAR ESS de la ciudad del Valle, que coordine con la Secretaría de Salud Departamental, entidad que fue puesta en conocimiento de la presente acción de tutela, mediante oficio No. 1773, de 21 de agosto de 2002, con el fin de que el Hospital Departamental "Evaristo García", practique la cirugía requerida por la accionante y le suministre los insumos necesarios para tal fin.
  4. Líbrense por Secretaría, las comunicaciones de que trata el artículo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.
  5. Notifíquese,
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.