REsp 2125701 - DECISAO

Por se tratar de antineoplásico oral (Esilato de Nintedanibe), registrado na ANVISA e com indicação expressa para o tratamento da fibrose pulmonar idiopática, a recusa de cobertura pelo plano de saúde com base apenas no fato de ser medicamento de uso domiciliar ou na ausência de enquadramento nas diretrizes da ANS é...

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Recorrente: RITA DE CASSIA ATHANAZIO
Court: Superior Tribunal de Justiça
Jurisdiction: Brazil
Judgment Date: 01 October 2024
Procedural Posture: Recurso Especial / Julgado No Superior Tribunal De Justiça
Outcome: Recurso especial conhecido e provido para restabelecer a sentença de fls. 590-595.
Legal Topics: Obrigatoriedade De Cobertura De Medicamento, Fibrose Pulmonar Idiopática, Nintedanibe, Medicamento De Uso Domiciliar, Antineoplásico Oral, Registro ANVISA, Diretrizes Da ANS

Civil Saúde Suplementar Direito Do Consumidor Obrigatoriedade De Cobertura De Medicamento Fibrose Pulmonar Idiopática Nintedanibe Medicamento De Uso Domiciliar Antineoplásico Oral +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2

Parties

RITA DE CASSIA ATHANAZIO

Recorrente

Procedural Posture

Recurso Especial / Julgado No Superior Tribunal De Justiça

Legal Issues

1 Obrigatoriedade de cobertura do medicamento Nintedanibe por plano de saúde
2 Exceção à exclusão de cobertura de medicamentos de uso domiciliar para antineoplásicos orais
3 Valor do registro na ANVISA e afastamento da classificação off-label

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Recurso especial conhecido e provido para restabelecer a sentença de fls. 590-595.

Orders

Restabelecer a sentença de fls. 590-595
Determinar a cobertura do medicamento Nintedanibe para tratamento de fibrose pulmonar idiopática

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.