Background
Sami Assistência Médica Ltda. filed an appeal to the Superior Court of Justice after the court below refused to admit its special appeal. That refusal rested on three grounds: STJ Repetitive Theme No. 990 did not apply; the challenged judgment had addressed all issues, so there was no violation of Articles 489 and 1,022 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and the judgment was consistent with STJ precedent, triggering STJ Súmula 83.
The STJ Presidency declined to hear the appeal because Sami had not specifically challenged the grounds supporting inadmissibility. Sami then filed an internal appeal, asserting that it had adequately contested those grounds and reiterating its arguments on the merits. The opposing party argued that the internal appeal was inadmissible and requested increased appellate attorney fees.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal and left the Presidency’s ruling in place. It found that Sami had not specifically and consistently challenged either the conclusion that Articles 489 and 1,022 were not violated or the application of STJ Súmula 83.
The court held that an appeal challenging the nonadmission of a special appeal must address every ground supporting that decision, whether or not the grounds are autonomous. Merely repeating arguments about the underlying merits is insufficient. Failure to satisfy this requirement violates the principle that appellate arguments must engage with the challenged decision and warrants nonconsideration under Article 932(III) of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and Article 253, sole paragraph, item I, of the STJ’s Internal Rules.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal from the refusal to admit a special appeal must specifically challenge every ground for inadmissibility.
- General assertions and renewed arguments on the merits do not cure a failure to address the procedural grounds identified below.
- An internal appeal cannot remedy the absence of specific challenges in the earlier appellate filing.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the strict issue-by-issue advocacy required to obtain review of a special appeal in Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice. Counsel must identify and rebut each reason given for nonadmission before attempting to revisit the merits.
The ruling also reflects the Fourth Panel’s adherence to the Special Court’s settled interpretation of the specific-challenge requirement, even where an individual judge has previously expressed a different personal view.