Post by account_disabled on Jan 24, 2024 22:13:52 GMT -6
If Unimed publishes on its website the image that it provides health care throughout the national territory, there is joint responsibility between the cooperatives even if they are based in different regions of the country and have different legal personalities. This was understood by the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice when recognizing Unimed Fortaleza as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by a woman from Belém who was unable to take an exam in the capital of Ceará, despite having national coverage. Unimed Fortaleza did not authorize the ophthalmological examination, claiming that the health plan and the contract for the provision of medical services were made with Unimed Belém and that, for this same reason, it could not appear as the defendant in the demand.
Despite this, she was sentenced in the first and second Buy Phone Number List degree to provide the service and compensate the author in R$10,000. The rapporteur, Minister Villas Bôas Cueva, assessed that the two units are responsible for the care and must pay for any treatment unduly denied. Although he recognizes that the Unimed complex involves several independent cooperatives, he said that the original unit communicates with the others and reimburses for services provided by another. “Each entity is autonomous, but they are all interconnected and presented to the consumer under the same brand, covering the entire national territory, which constitutes a factor in attracting new users”, analyzed the rapporteur, citing the theory of appearance.
Therefore, the change to body 12 would imply significant layout changes, making advertisements more expensive. The minister highlighted that the small size of a font can make advertising misleading when capable of misleading the consumer. “This conclusion, however, can only be obtained by analyzing each particular advertisement, and it is not possible to establish an a priori criterion, as intended by the appellant”, he highlighted. This time, and in compliance with the literal provision of §6 of article 30 of law 9,656/98, the STJ concluded that the co-participation eventually paid for exams and consultations does not meet the contribution requirement, referring to the regular payment of the monthly installment of the plan, even if through symbolic discounts on their remuneration, such contribution being truly essential for the granting of the benefit in question, as can be seen in the summary reproduced below, from the recent ruling already mentioned: Retirees do not have the right to remain on a health plan fully paid for by the company – 03/30/2017 The maintenance of retired or unfairly dismissed former employees in collective health plans is permitted in cases where the worker regularly contributed to the plan during the period of validity of the employment contract.
Despite this, she was sentenced in the first and second Buy Phone Number List degree to provide the service and compensate the author in R$10,000. The rapporteur, Minister Villas Bôas Cueva, assessed that the two units are responsible for the care and must pay for any treatment unduly denied. Although he recognizes that the Unimed complex involves several independent cooperatives, he said that the original unit communicates with the others and reimburses for services provided by another. “Each entity is autonomous, but they are all interconnected and presented to the consumer under the same brand, covering the entire national territory, which constitutes a factor in attracting new users”, analyzed the rapporteur, citing the theory of appearance.
Therefore, the change to body 12 would imply significant layout changes, making advertisements more expensive. The minister highlighted that the small size of a font can make advertising misleading when capable of misleading the consumer. “This conclusion, however, can only be obtained by analyzing each particular advertisement, and it is not possible to establish an a priori criterion, as intended by the appellant”, he highlighted. This time, and in compliance with the literal provision of §6 of article 30 of law 9,656/98, the STJ concluded that the co-participation eventually paid for exams and consultations does not meet the contribution requirement, referring to the regular payment of the monthly installment of the plan, even if through symbolic discounts on their remuneration, such contribution being truly essential for the granting of the benefit in question, as can be seen in the summary reproduced below, from the recent ruling already mentioned: Retirees do not have the right to remain on a health plan fully paid for by the company – 03/30/2017 The maintenance of retired or unfairly dismissed former employees in collective health plans is permitted in cases where the worker regularly contributed to the plan during the period of validity of the employment contract.