Costa Rica, Supreme Court of Justice. Constitutional Chamber, 28 January 2022, No. 02335 – 2022
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Deciding body (Original)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Instance
Area
Vulnerability groups
Outcome of the decision
General Summary
The Plaintiff filed a protective action, recurso de amparo, against the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (CCSS) alleging a violation to her fundamental rights. She argued that she was an elder woman with cataracts in her left eye. Hence, she was prescribed, with high priority, a surgery since January 20, 2020. However, her procedure had not been scheduled by the time of the suit, December 6, 2021. Public authorities argued that the surgery had not been possible due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Court found that the rights of the Plaintiff had been violated. For the Court, public authorities did not offer any reasonable justification for the delay of the surgery, especially considering that the Plaintiff was part of a vulnerability group, the elderly, in such that the omission could have caused a greater harm to the Plaintiff’s health and that the Costa Rican healthcare system, organized by the CCSS, had other hospitals that had not been affected by the pandemic. Hence, it upheld the Plaintiff’s claim.
Facts of the case
- The Plaintiff is an elderly woman diagnosed with cataracts in her left eye.
- On January 20, 2020, her hospital ordered a high priority surgery for her illness.
- On December 6, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a protective action, recurso de amparo, alleging a violation to her fundamental rights as, at the time, the surgery had not been conducted.
- Upon being notified of the suit, on December 15, 2021, the hospital conducted pre-surgical exams and scheduled the surgery for January 12, 2022, however, the doctor in charge was not able to attend because he was diagnosed with COVID-19.
- On January 28, 2022, the Court declared the violation of the fundamental rights of the Plaintiff by the healthcare authorities.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private individualDefendant(s)
Public
Type of procedure
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court concluded that the rights of the Plaintiff had been violated by the failure of the public authorities to schedule and conduct her surgery.
Reasoning of the deciding body
The Court reasoned that the public authorities did not offer any justification in delaying the surgery, finding that the argument of the COVID-19 pandemic was not sufficient. For the Court, the special condition of the Plaintiff, being elderly, the fact that there were other hospitals not affected by the pandemic, and the fact that a lack of a timely treatment could affect the Plaintiff’s health, implicitly rendered any justification unreasonable. This is further emphasized when the Court acknowledged that, while the pandemic might have impacted the operation of the hospital, public authorities had the duty to adapt and implement institutional changes to continue functioning, with the aim of protecting the fundamental rights of patients.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
General principle applied
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
Reasonableness: The Court implicitly rendered the omission of public authorities unreasonable. This is evidenced when the Court stated that it did not find the argument of the COVID-19 pandemic sufficient. For the Court, the special condition of the Plaintiff, being eldery, the fact that there were other hospitals not affected by the pandemic, and the fact that a lack of a timely treatment could affect the Plaintiff’s health, meant that there was no justification nor equitable standard that public authorities could point to when omitting to schedule the surgery. This is further emphasized when the Court acknowledged that, while the pandemic might have impacted the operation of the hospital, public authorities had the duty to adapt and implement institutional changes to continue functioning, without affecting the fundamental rights of patients.
