Region: Americas
Year: 2011
Court: Supreme Court of Justice [Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación Argentina]
Health Topics: Child and adolescent health, Health care and health services, Health systems and financing, Mental health
Human Rights: Right to development, Right to education, Right to life, Right to social security
Tags: Access to treatment, Children, Health care and health services, Mental disorder, Mental illness, Minor, Right to education, Right to Health, Right to social security, Social security
The plaintiff brought the case to the First Instance Court of Paraná [Juzgado de Instrucción n° 7 de Paraná] aginst the Helath Insurance Institute of Entre Ríos [Instituto de Obra Social de la Provincia de Entre Ríos – IOSPER] because it refused to provide comprehensive coverage to the autism treatment that the plaintiff’s son needed.
The First Instance Court granted the claim and ordered the health insurance to provide full coverage to Mrs. Miró son. The respondent appealed with Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos which revoked the First Instance judgement because the amparo protection implied and extension of the health insurance coverage, which altered the solidarity system at the expense of other affiliates. The plaintiff brought an extraordinary appeal with Supreme Court of Justice claiming that her right to health, right to development and equality before law had been violated.
The Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the extraordinary appeal because the plaintiff didn't rebut all the arguments of the appealed judgement. Judge Zaffaroni dissented, holding that the rights of the disabled 5 year old child should prevail against economic arguments and he grants the claim.
"[...] considerando las especiales circunstancias que se acreditaron en la presente causa, es decir, encontrándose en riesgo el derecho a la salud y al desarrollo educativo de un niño de 5 años de edad con síndrome de espectro autista, no es admisible en un Estado constitucional formal y materialmente insertado en el paradigma del derecho internacional de los derechos humanos una argumentación economicista por sobre derechos fundamentales." Form the dissenting opinion, para. 8
"[...] considering the special circumstances present in the case, that is to say, being in risks the tight to health, right to educational development of a 5 year old with the autism spectrum disorder, it is not admissible in a constitutional State inserted in the context of international law of human rights, for an economist argument to prevail over fundamental rights " Form the dissenting opinion, para. 8