Background
Maritania Vieira Ribeiro sought material, moral, and aesthetic damages arising from allegedly deficient cosmetic breast-implant surgery. The Santa Catarina Court of Justice affirmed judgment against her, relying on expert evidence that found the procedure technically appropriate, no medical error or permanent injury, and breast asymmetry consistent with natural physiological variation.
Ribeiro filed a special appeal based on alleged conflicting case law. The STJ Presidency declined to hear it under STF Precedent 284 because the appeal did not clearly identify the federal statutory provision that had supposedly received divergent interpretations. Ribeiro then filed an internal appeal, arguing that she had identified Article 14 of the Consumer Defense Code and performed the required comparison between decisions.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal during its virtual session ending June 30, 2026. It held that a special appeal alleging conflicting judicial interpretations under Article 105, III(c), of the Federal Constitution must identify the particular federal statutory provision interpreted differently and must analytically compare factually similar decisions showing conflicting interpretations of that same provision.
Ribeiro’s special appeal contained only generic arguments and did not clearly identify the federal-law provision at issue in the alleged conflict. Merely mentioning a statutory article elsewhere did not satisfy that requirement. The resulting deficiency prevented an exact understanding of the controversy and therefore triggered STF Precedent 284 by analogy. The STJ accordingly left intact the decision refusing to hear the special appeal and did not decide the underlying medical-liability dispute on the merits.
Key Takeaways
- A special appeal based on conflicting case law must clearly identify the federal statutory provision allegedly interpreted differently.
- The appellant must demonstrate factual similarity between the compared decisions and opposing interpretations of the same federal-law provision.
- Generic argument or mere citation of a statute is insufficient and may result in non-consideration under STF Precedent 284.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the strict briefing requirements governing Brazilian special appeals based on jurisprudential divergence. Even when an appellant identifies an allegedly conflicting judgment, the STJ will not reach the substantive dispute unless the filing precisely connects the conflict to a specified provision of federal law.
For medical-liability litigants, the ruling is procedural rather than a new substantive holding about cosmetic surgery. The lower court’s judgment remained in place because the special appeal was inadequately framed, not because the STJ independently resolved whether the physician or hospital was liable.