JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)October 8, 2004

T-983 de 2004

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

Reporting justice Rodrigo Escobar Gil

✓Claimant Eulalia Andrea Rivera Castro Vs. Cruz Blanca

✓
Topic · hard data
Proteccion De La Mujer En Estado De Embarazo Y Derechos Del Hijo Por Nacer De Afiliada Beneficiaria Que No Fue Atendida Por Haber Cumplido La Mayoría De Edad. Solicita Se Ordene A La Entidad El Suministro De La Atención Medica Que Requiere. Cobertura Fa
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.

Plan Obligatorio De Salud
  • Causales de extinción de derecho del beneficiario
  • Cobertura familiar
  • Obligación del afiliado de comunicar novedades
2 topics · 4 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 (3 points)
  1. Primero. CONFIRMAR el fallo proferido por el Juzgado Veinticuatro Penal Municipal de Bogota, de mayo 14 de 2004 en la accion de tutela interpuesta por Eulalia Andrea Rivera Castro contra Cruz Blanca EPS.
  2. Segundo. PREVENIR a Cruz Blanca EPS para que en lo sucesivo se abstenga de vulnerar el derecho fundamental del debido proceso de sus afiliados cotizantes, al omitir la previa comunicacion escrita a estos con no menos de un (1) mes de antelacion sobre la existencia de una causal extintiva de la calidad de sus beneficiarios como condicion para la desafiliacion correspondiente.
  3. Tercero. LIBRENSE las comunicaciones de que trata el articulo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991, para los efectos alli contemplados.
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.