Background
Hapvida Assistência Médica S.A. filed an internal appeal from a decision by the President of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça that declined to consider its appeal seeking review of the refusal to admit a special appeal. The President’s decision rested on Hapvida’s failure to challenge specifically the grounds on which the special appeal had been denied admission.
The original inadmissibility ruling had applied two sets of procedural barriers: STF Precedents 282 and 356 because provisions of the Consumer Defense Code had not been preserved for review, and STJ Precedent 7 because addressing the alleged unlawfulness of canceling a health plan during treatment for a serious illness would require reconsideration of the factual record. Hapvida asserted that it had challenged the inadmissibility grounds and also renewed its arguments on the merits. The appellee filed no response.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal and upheld the President’s decision. It held that an appeal seeking review of a decision refusing admission of a special appeal must challenge specifically and consistently every ground supporting that refusal, whether or not the grounds are independent.
Hapvida did not adequately address the application of STJ Precedent 7. Its argument was generic and disconnected from the actual dispute: it discussed the legality of denying coverage during a waiting period, while the case concerned cancellation of a health plan during treatment for a serious illness. Under Article 932(III) of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and Article 253, sole paragraph, item I, of the STJ’s Internal Rules, that omission made the appeal inadmissible. The Panel also explained that merely repeating the merits cannot cure a failure to confront a procedural ground for inadmissibility.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal against the refusal to admit a special appeal must address every ground supporting the refusal, including grounds that are not autonomous.
- A generic assertion that STJ Precedent 7 does not apply is insufficient; the appellant must compare the facts established below with its legal arguments and explain why no reexamination of evidence is required.
- An internal appeal cannot cure the failure to make the required specific challenge in the earlier appellate filing.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the STJ’s strict application of the principle of appellate dialectics: an appellant must explain concretely why each stated basis for the challenged ruling is wrong. Arguments directed only to the underlying merits do not overcome an unaddressed admissibility barrier.
For practitioners, the ruling highlights the need to match each argument in an appeal for admission directly to the corresponding ground in the lower court’s refusal. A mismatch between the record and the argument—such as discussing waiting-period coverage when the case concerns cancellation during serious-illness treatment—can prevent merits review altogether.