Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
6 comments 
The STJ Decided That Health Plans Can Be Considered a Financial Obligation in Family Disputes, Allowing Economically Dependent Ex-Spouses to Demand Continuation of Medical Coverage.
The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has consolidated an understanding that has changed the way Brazilian courts analyze family disputes: the health plan, in certain situations, can be treated as a financial obligation. This means that, just like monetary alimony, the maintenance of medical coverage can be required from an ex-spouse, provided there is real economic dependence.
This decision seeks to uphold the principle of human dignity and the duty of mutual assistance arising from marriage and stable unions. After all, health is a fundamental right, and in many situations, losing the plan after divorce could seriously compromise the life of those who depended on that coverage.
STJ Decisions on the Subject
In Special Appeal No. 1.733.013/SP, the STJ analyzed the case of an ex-wife who, without her own income, was entirely dependent on her husband’s health plan. The Court recognized that, beyond the payment of monetary alimony, there was a need to maintain the link to the plan, under penalty of exposing the woman to a serious health risk and compromising her subsistence.
-
With the arrival of Law 11.788, internships are now recognized as professional experience.
-
The Brazilian Civil Code states that a property owner has the right to cut the roots of a neighbor’s tree that invade their land, as long as it does not harm the tree itself. The owner must notify the neighbor before taking such action.
-
Engineer is sentenced to repay R$ 148 thousand after holding public positions in three municipalities in Rondônia with incompatible schedules, and the decision is upheld by the Court of Justice.
-
Chamber approves project that creates mandatory Life Insurance for police officers, firefighters, guards, and traffic agents.
This understanding is not isolated: state courts have already been applying the same logic in decisions that extend the obligation to cover or maintain the health plan as part of alimony. In summary, it is not just a benefit, but a protective measure that can be vital for those who do not have the means to pay for medical treatments.
When the Health Plan Should Be Maintained
The STJ made it clear that not every divorce generates this type of obligation. The health plan will only be considered part of the alimony when there are specific factors, such as:
- Proven economic dependence of the ex-spouse;
- Advanced age or difficulty re-entering the job market;
- Serious illnesses or health conditions requiring ongoing treatment;
- Prior existence of the benefit as part of the couple’s standard of living.
In these cases, the obligation of the ex-spouse to maintain medical coverage can be added to the payment of monetary alimony, forming a broader support model.
Practical Impact on Families
This understanding has direct repercussions on the lives of thousands of Brazilians facing the end of a marriage or stable union. By recognizing the health plan as an extension of alimony, the Judiciary:
- Prevents vulnerable individuals from being left without medical assistance;
- Ensures continuity of essential treatments, such as chemotherapy or dialysis;
- Reinforces the social function of the family, acknowledging that the duty of solidarity does not abruptly end with separation.
On the other hand, the decision also raises debates about the limits of financial obligation after divorce. Many argue that the health plan can represent a high cost for the payer, especially in times of annual adjustments above inflation.
Health Plans and Alimony: A New Reality
The consolidation of this understanding paves the way for new lawsuits, where ex-spouses and even adult children may request the maintenance of health plans as part of alimony. The trend is that courts will continue to apply this reasoning in similar cases, reinforcing that health is an essential right and cannot be put at risk due to financial issues.
Thus, the STJ’s decision reaffirms that the right to life and health prevails over attempts to reduce responsibilities after the end of a union.
Como esposa atual, tenho doença crônica e autoimune. Tenho plano de saude só que sempre perco o plano, pois nao sou prioridade na vida dele. Minha filha tem doença neurológica e tb nao é prioridade para ele, prioridade é somente ele que tem o plano da Unimed. O plano meu e de minha filha sempre atraza o pagto até perder, daí faz outro plano e assim vai. O dele nunca deixou de pagar. Sou do lar desde que casei a 24 anos, dediquei todo esse tempo a ele e a sua família toda. Ele porém ta nem aí com isso. Se já nao paga certo imagina se separar? As pessoas as vezes nao entendem que a mulher trabalha sim mesmo em casa, e que numa separação ela já está totalmente destruída em todas as formas sem saúde que é o principal, sem condições financeiras e emocional para tanto. No meu caso nao consigo trabalhar fora devido a doença autoimune que ataca as articulações, e devido as condições de doença de diabetes. Se eu dependesse do SUS estaria muito prejudicada. E minha filha muito mais ainda. Então essa lei deveria se aplicar a casados ainda. Pous ainda cumpro com minhas obrigações no lar.
Muito justo e instrutivo, obrigada.
Não tem nada de justo aí
Se for para concluir um tratamento em andamento, até vai. Mas fora disso, é mais uma lei que vai fazer evitar casamento e filhos no mundo.