In the case of institutional severity, the Provincial mandate He was sentenced to pay nearly 4.4 million pesos for non-pecuniary damages as well as benefits for the widow and children of a disabled man who died nine years ago in Córdoba awaiting appropriate medical assistance, which never arrived despite the harsh conditions of physical decline.
The judge of the First Instance and Commercial Court of the forty-fifth candidate, Hector Daniel Suarez, ruled in favor of the next of kin, who did not sue the judge, so the verdict only reaches the district.
An extreme case
Julio Cesar Marini, 60 years old at the time of his death in 2012, was a transporter for elderly and chronically ill people. He lived in Cordoba with his wife, a merchant, and three children (two boys and a 13-year-old girl at the time).
On August 7, 2011, L. brain attack (CVA) hemorrhagic, which has caused both neurological and motor damage. Due to the diagnosis, he was forced to remain bedridden in Al-Rahma Hospital, while breastfeeding.
He could only bandage his arms and legs with medical help. He was having difficulties speaking and suffered from recurrent pneumonia inside the hospital, as stated in the family’s civil lawsuit.
The governorate awarded him a certificate of disability due to hemorrhagic stroke and right hemiplegia with deficiency. In September 2011 the treating physician requested admission to a comprehensive rehabilitation center.
Because he was affiliated with Epros, the wife sent two notes to the director regarding the man’s need for treatment in a specialized setting (since the family could not afford the costs of hospitalization in a certain way). However, the woman stated that she received no response.
Intimidated, Apross noted that Marini has two flaws, and thus, the Comprehensive Disability Care System (Saeed) only grants rehab coverage to those affiliates who are not deficient. She also informed him that it is not covered by the National Disability Law 24901.
In a desperate situation, the wife filed a temporary protection case in October 2011, asking her to order Abros to cover 100 percent of the treatment at Centro Vida Plena, Arguilo, and to issue the precautionary measure due to the serious condition.
But the judge of probation in economic criminal matters, Anna Maria Lucero de Overdi, declared the appeal against Abrouse inadmissible, and dismissed the unconstitutionality case filed.
In November, while the man was still awaiting treatment, the family appealed to the charge room. On December 14, relatives informed the room about the patient’s deteriorating health and demanded an urgent solution.
The next day, the court accepted the appeal, and overturned Judge Lucero de Overrede’s ruling and ordered the grievance to be addressed.
The family presented the judge with an early consignment due to the imminent risk of death due to deteriorating health (malnutrition, lack of medical care, poor economic condition of the family, and the refusal of social work to provide coverage), requesting it. She is requested to Apross to provide treatment.
A day later, the judge acknowledged the lawsuit and requested reports from the district. In 72 hours, the family submitted two new testimonies about Marini’s serious condition and the risks of not receiving treatment, and recommended his treatment in Argüello. The doctor warned the signer that the patient was “at extremely high risk.”
He was transferred to a special clinic, which differs from the clinic, because of his serious condition. However, he was sent home because the clinic did not have the necessary equipment.
On December 29, the family filed a new urgent application for the restraining order. On Day 30, the last business day of the year, at 1:30 p.m., the judge rejected the appeal against Apross, deemed the unconstitutional case inadmissible, and declared the restraining order request summary.
The family questioned the judge for making the decision in “absolute breach” of legal deadlines and in “separation” from immediate transmissions, 14 days after receiving the “downloaded” file by the department and seven business days after the Abros report.
The wife appealed in February 2012. Due to the cancellation of compensation for the patient’s vital functions, the relatives asked the indictment room for urgent treatment of the case due to the imminent risk of death.
However, Marini died on 20 February, “without necessary medical assistance, abandoning the health and justice system,” he was denounced.
In April, eight months after a stroke that left him prostrate, the chamber lodged an appeal and declared Abrouse’s decision unconstitutional that denied him universal coverage of treatment.
The maids confirmed that “Abros’ failure to comply with national laws No. 23.660 and 23661” does not specify, In itselfTo relieve this body from the burden of taking reasonable measures placed at its disposal to achieve full access for the disabled member to the benefits of social security, within the comprehensive scope specified by the constitutional regulations.
They noted that “the refusal of Epros implies a complete lack of protection for a person in extremely dangerous circumstances.”
The family filed a civil suit against the governorate, requesting rejection. In this sense, he denied that Marini died due to “medical distress” and refused to bear any responsibility. “I deny that the cause of death (…) is the alleged slowness in the administration of justice and the judge’s disregard for the law,” Offredi said.
The widow and the children stated that the damage resulted from the slow administration of justice and ignorance of the judge’s rights.
Most recently, a trial court judge Suarez condemned the province and ordered compensation for the widow and the children. In very harsh terms, the judge asserted that Overdi “acted late” and “ignored clear and current legal rules.”
He pointed out that even an incompetent judge could have recognized the precautionary measure due to its “temporary and urgent nature”, more than that “as in the case of Marini, every minute of delay harms his health.” In another possible scenario at the dawn of the case, the judge explained that his colleague “could passively resolve it (as a matter of urgency) passively (as a precaution), enabling the second instance.”
He said, “It did not take into account that the grievance was a disabled person who is not only documented, but to a severe degree that alone cannot enforce their rights,” he said.
He ignored – and continued – international covenants with constitutional recognition that bind states, and by the way, our state, to be protected from discrimination. It did not take into account that protecting the right to health and helping people with disabilities is envisaged in our country as a state policy. ”
As for Suarez, “The reasonableness of the law He was always present (something Overde denied was fulfilled) and indicated that Marini’s wife “has the right to take the precautionary measure required as a matter of urgency” from the start.
“The delay in issuing it leads to ignorance of all the legislation referred to, and consequently seriously affects the health of Marini. It is not absent from us that every judge has the authority to interpret the legal rule (…) but it is not less true that this freedom has limits: the clear provisions in the Constitution National, international treaties and laws which, as a result, dictate. ”
“Thus, the freedom of judgment by which a judge should think cannot become a judgment flagrantly inconsistent with current legislation. If this happens, the state must respond to the harmful consequences of the actions of one of its employees,” referring to Lucero de Overdi.
He considered that “there is no doubt that in the case there was a judicial error (…), that the magistrate judge committed this, and that the state must respond.” He noted that the state is not responsible for past events under protection or for the death of Marini herself, but for “depriving him of the opportunity to survive and the quality of life.”
In fact, the court ordered the county to compensate the widow in the amount of 1,636,167 pesos for moral and psychological damage and loss of opportunity for assistance and survival. The daughter must receive 1,185,630 pesos (for moral damage, loss …); The two men are 760,000 pesos (one) and 802,646 pesos (the other) for non-monetary damages plus benefits.