Judicial error of the MSP: the anesthetist who took advantage of an administrative oversight to undermine the Ministry

By Roy Rodriquez

In the corridors of the Legislative Palace, the air was cut with a knife this Tuesday. Minister Cristina Lustemberg, who had already been balancing on a tightrope due to the Soledad Barrera case, had to face a new barrage of questions. This time, the blow did not come from outside, but from within: an administrative error, almost a beginner's, left the Ministry of Public Health (MSP) in a position of absolute vulnerability in the face of the lawsuit of Inés Miralles, the anesthetist convicted of manslaughter.

The crux of the conflict is as simple as it is devastating for the portfolio's image: the Ministry responded out of time to the annulment action filed by the professional against her disqualification. In the world of dossiers, a day's delay can mean the loss of a battle before the war begins.

The day the bureaucracy turned against

The scene occurred months ago, but the impact exploded now. The MSP legal team let the deadline to respond to the lawsuit expire. According to the Administrative Litigation Code of 2024, this lack of response is not a simple procedure; It is, in the eyes of the law, a tacit admission of the facts alleged by the counterparty.

When the Ministry's lawyers tried to react, it was too late. In an attempt to save the furniture, they proposed including witnesses—testimonial evidence—to counter Miralles' story. But Judge Lucía Techera Tealdi did not buy the argument. In his interlocutory ruling, he was blunt: since the Ministry did not respond in time, the facts of the lawsuit are considered true. The door to the witnesses slammed shut.

The judge, however, left a small gap open when authorizing a technical medical expertise. “I do not have medical knowledge,” the judge reasoned, marking a clear distance between the Ministry's error and the need to understand medical responsibility beyond the papers.

The defense in Parliament and the ghost of concealment

Fabiana Alonso, deputy director of the legal department, tried to lower the decibels of the matter before the press. He spoke of “human error” and a suffocating workload between trials and procedures. It is the explanation that is usually heard in the hallways of public departments when reality exceeds the norm.

But for the opposition, the speech did not work. The white senator Martín Lema, who already had the file under scrutiny, did not hold anything back. “Information was hidden from Parliament,” he shot as soon as he left the commission. According to Lema, when the authorities previously appeared before senators and deputies, they already knew of the blunder and preferred silence.

That silence, which in politics is usually louder than a shout, caused an immediate loss of confidence. The opposition's indignation is not only due to the administrative fact, but also due to the perception that, in the Ministry of Health, transparency became a luxury item.

A scenario of constant tension

Lustemberg, for his part, stays the course. He insists that his decision to reduce Miralles' disqualification from five to three years was based on technical criteria and a gradual nature of the sanctions that was already applied in other cases. “I don't know Dr. Miralles,” he repeated almost like a mantra, seeking to distance himself from any suspicion of favoritism that floats in the air since 11 members of the Public Health Commission resigned en masse, in protest.

While the minister tries to sustain her management, the case is progressing in the Legal Annulment Litigation Court. The administrative investigation within the Ministry is already underway, seeking those responsible for the “forgetfulness” that today has the State on the ropes.

On the street, far from the files and parliamentary explanations, there remains the bitter taste of a process that does not seem to find peace. For the family of Soledad Barrera and for public opinion, every piece of news about this trial reinforces the feeling that, in administrative justice, human error always ends up being paid for with the same coin: doubt about the system.