Background
The plaintiff sought material, moral, and aesthetic damages after an accident on a trampoline at Mauá Plaza Shopping and subsequent treatment within Notre Dame Intermédica Saúde S/A’s accredited network. He alleged delayed magnetic-resonance imaging, denial of coverage for neurosurgery, and transfer to a public hospital, culminating in quadriplegia. The trial court found no causal link between the treatment and the quadriplegia but held Intermédica liable for deficient service arising from the imaging delay and transfer. It awarded moral damages, later increased on appeal to R$50,000.
The shopping-center companies, Brasterra Empreendimentos Imobiliários Ltda. and Peralta Investimentos e Participações Empresariais Ltda., initially prevailed, but an earlier STJ ruling directed the state court to apply the Consumer Defense Code and recognize their responsibility for the claimed compensation. After remand, those companies settled with the plaintiff, acknowledged responsibility, and ended the proceedings as to themselves. Intermédica then argued that the settlement with alleged solidary debtors should extinguish or reduce its own obligation under article 844 of the Civil Code.
The São Paulo Court of Justice held that the settlement eliminated the plaintiff’s interest in further appellate proceedings concerning Brasterra and Peralta. It also stated that Intermédica’s liability arose exclusively from care provided in its accredited hospital network, making solidarity inapplicable and preventing Intermédica from benefiting from the settlement.
The Court’s Holding
The STJ’s Fourth Panel unanimously granted Intermédica’s internal appeal and reconsidered the STJ Presidency’s earlier refusal to hear its appeal from the order denying admission of the special appeal. The Panel concluded that STJ Súmula 182 did not bar that intermediate appeal because Intermédica had adequately challenged the relevant grounds.
On renewed review, however, the Panel admitted the intermediate appeal but did not entertain the special appeal. Intermédica had failed to challenge the state court’s independently sufficient determination that its liability arose solely from its own deficient medical services, that no solidary liability applied to that award, and that the settlement with Brasterra and Peralta could not benefit it. By analogy, STF Súmula 283 barred review because the special appeal did not address every sufficient ground supporting the judgment.
The STJ therefore left the challenged state-court disposition intact without reaching the merits of Intermédica’s article 844 argument. It did not increase appellate attorney’s fees because no such fees had been fixed below.
Key Takeaways
- A special appeal must challenge every autonomous and sufficient ground supporting the appealed judgment; omission of one such ground can trigger STF Súmula 283 by analogy.
- Intermédica succeeded in overturning the procedural ruling based on STJ Súmula 182, but its special appeal still failed at the admissibility stage.
- The STJ did not decide whether article 844 generally extends the benefit of a settlement to other solidary debtors; it declined review because Intermédica had not challenged the finding that its obligation was separate and arose from its own conduct.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the distinction between successfully challenging the rejection of an appeal and securing review of the underlying special appeal. Even when the appellant satisfies the requirement of specifically contesting the admission ruling, review remains unavailable if its special-appeal briefing leaves an independently sufficient ground of the lower court’s judgment unanswered.
For parties seeking the benefit of a settlement reached by co-defendants, the ruling also highlights the need to confront any finding that their liabilities arise from distinct conduct. Here, the unchallenged characterization of Intermédica’s liability as exclusively based on its own medical services prevented the STJ from considering its settlement-based argument.