ISSN Online: 2177-1235 | ISSN Print: 1983-5175

Evaluating judgments and decisions related to lawsuits involving aesthetic plastic surgery
Avaliação de sentenças e jurisprudências relacionadas a ações judiciais envolvendo cirurgias plásticas estéticas

Previous Article Next Article

Original Article - Year2019 - Volume34 - Issue 4

Fabio Hideki Júlio Oshiro1,*

http://www.dx.doi.org/10.5935/2177-1235.2019RBCP0228

ABSTRACT

Introduction: There is a legal consensus that the results of medical activities represent obligations of means, not results. However, there is ample discussion when it comes to aesthetic procedures. Resolution 1621/2001 of the Federal Council of Medicine also defines the objective of a medical act in plastic surgery as an obligation of means. This study evaluated 106 cases between November 2015 and November 2017 to verify whether the decisions of the Judicial Power agree with the Resolution of the Federal Council of Medicine. The number of lawsuits and the percentage of claims granted or denied were quantified, and the opinions of jurists and courts that supported the claims granted were verified. The number of cases in which the judge's decision was related to the opinion of a medical expert was also quantified.
Methods: The authors searched the judgment database located on the website of the Court of Justice of the State of São Paulo (SP) for damage related to aesthetic plastic surgery, using the keyword "Plastic Surgery" for all actions.
Results: A total of 61 claims (58%) were denied, and 45 (42%) were granted. In 96% of cases (102) the judgment was positively related to the expert report.
Conclusion: There were 102 cases in which the judgment agreed with the expert reports and only four cases in which the judgment did not agree with the reports. These data show the crucial importance of experts' reports in defining judicial judgments. The analyses of all judgments showed that there were no cases in which the judge considered the Resolution of the Federal Council of Medicine.

Keywords: Aesthetics; Plastic surgery; Jurisprudence; Court decisions; Legal Medicine.

RESUMO

Introdução: É consenso no meio jurídico que os resultados referentes às atividades médicas sejam obrigação de meio, e não de resultado. Contudo, há grande discussão quando se trata de procedimentos estéticos. A Resolução nº 1621/2001, do Conselho Federal de Medicina, define que o objetivo do ato médico na cirurgia plástica também constitui obrigação de meio. O estudo avaliou, entre novembro de 2015 a novembro de 2017, 106 casos, para verificar se o entendimento do Judiciário se alinha à Resolução do CFM. Foram quantificados o número de processos e a porcentagem dos casos julgados como procedentes ou improcedentes, além de verificar as principais posições doutrinárias e jurisprudenciais que embasaram as sentenças admitidas como procedentes. Foi, ainda, quantificado o número de casos cuja decisão do magistrado foi relacionada com o posicionamento do laudo pericial médico.
Métodos: Foi feita busca no banco de sentenças do site do Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo (SP), por meio da palavra-chave "Cirurgia Plástica", de todos os processos de indenização relacionados a cirurgias plásticas estéticas.
Resultados: Foram sentenciados como improcedentes 61 casos (58%). Foram sentenciados como procedentes 45 casos (42%). Em 96% dos casos (102) a sentença relacionou-se positivamente com a análise pericial.
Conclusão: Foram 102 sentenças concordantes aos laudos periciais e apenas quatro casos cuja sentença divergiu do entendimento do laudo. Estes dados mostram a importância crucial da análise pericial para a definição das sentenças judiciais. Analisando todas as sentenças, observou-se que em nenhum caso os juízes levaram em conta a Resolução do CFM.

Palavras-chave: Estética; Cirurgia plástica; Jurisprudência; Decisões judiciais; Medicina legal

INTRODUCTION

The International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS)1 survey compiles data collected from plastic surgeons around the world to estimate the total number of plastic surgeries performed in each of the participating countries. According to the 2016 ISAPS survey, Brazil ranked second in the world in total plastic surgery procedures; in 2013, Brazil led this ranking. In 2015, the number of interventions in Brazil totaled 1.22 million surgical procedures and 1.1 million cosmetic procedures. Despite a decrease of almost 230,000 annual procedures between 2013 and 2016, Brazil still trails the United States (1.41 million surgeries in 2015) in this regard. The survey also indicated that 9.6 million plastic surgeries were performed worldwide in 2015, and that Brazilian patients represented 12.7% of these surgeries. There are currently 5,900 plastic surgeons in Brazil and 6,500 in the United States.1

The increasing search for an ideal body and ways to mitigate the signs of aging often lead patients to be dissatisfied with surgery outcomes. Thus, an increase in interventions often causes a corresponding increase in the number of lawsuits over alleged poor professional performance in surgeries and procedures. In the context of aesthetic plastic surgery, these lawsuits are usually caused by patients' perceptions of unsatisfactory results, false promises, and irregular advertising.2

Adverse plastic surgery outcomes can be caused by factors intrinsic to patients (such as poor tissue perfusion in smokers and diabetics, or the tendency of plastic surgery patients to develop hypertrophic and keloid scars), extrinsic diseases (including the development of postoperative infections),3 or patients' lack of careful adherence to the orders of their medical professionals and surgeons. However, in a small number of cases adverse outcomes are the result of medical errors caused by malpractice, recklessness, or negligence. Many patients, believing that they were injured by their doctors, seek awards for damages as a compensation for discretionary, material, and cosmetic damages.

There are two types of obligation related to medical practice results: obligation of means and obligation of result. Obligation of means is a concept widely accepted for general medical activities in which the duty to compensate does not stem from the risk of the activity performed. This type of obligation states that the duty to repair damages should be imposed by negligent, reckless, or unskillful conduct, and not by the results of the surgery itself. However, in cases of aesthetic procedures, there is ample discussion for an obligation of result. This type of obligation states that physicians have a duty to compensate for damages caused if the results of a procedure differ from the patient's expectations, and that physicians must prove their innocence in these cases. In other words, obligations of results shift the burden of proof from the patient to the physician or surgeon.

Resolution No. 1621/2001 of the Federal Council of Medicine (CFM)4 defined the medical act in plastic surgery - as in all medical practice - as an obligation of means, not of result. However, there are jurists and courts in our legal system that consider aesthetic plastic surgery as a commercial activity, and therefore, as an activity covered under obligation of result.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze actions for damages as a compensation for discretionary, material, and cosmetic damages involving aesthetic plastic surgery in order to:

Quantify the number of lawsuits and the percentage of claims granted or denied.

Show the opinions of jurists and courts that supported the claims granted and verify whether their opinions agree with CFM Resolution No. 1621/2001.

Quantify the number of cases in which the decision of the judge was positively or negatively related to the opinion of the court's medical expert and analyze the expert's importance in forming the legal basis of judgments.

METHODS

The authors searched the judgment database located on the website of the Court of Justice of the State of São Paulo (SP) using the keyword "Plastic Surgery." They selected and evaluated all cases of damages awarded as compensation for discretionary, material, and cosmetic damages available to the public domain between November 2015 and November 2017 - a total of 106 lawsuits (Annex 1).

Only cases involving patient dissatisfaction with the results of cosmetic surgery were selected. Cases involving restorative plastic surgery or lawsuits for non-aesthetic reasons - such as death or other postoperative clinical complications like venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism - were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

A total of 61 claims (58%) were denied and 45 cases (42%) were granted (Figure 1). In four cases the judgment differed from the expert report. Therefore, in 102 cases (96%), the judgment was positively related to the expert report (Figure 2).

Figure 1 - Judgments.
Figure 1 - Judgments.

Figure 2 - Judgments in line with expert reports.
Figure 2 - Judgments in line with expert reports.

DISCUSSION

Notwithstanding the freedom a judge has to rule according to his justified understanding, the analyses of the above cases showed that 96% of judgments were based on the medical expert's report. The Code of Civil Procedure (NCPC), published in 2015, recognizes the importance of expert evidence, introduces major innovations to appoint such experts, and requires clear grounds for court judgments based on expert reports. The code states that judges' reasoning should reflect the grounds that legally justify the findings.5

According to the head provision of Article 156 of the NCPC, the judge will be assisted by an expert when the proof of the fact depends on technical or scientific knowledge.5 The technical expert should provide the judge with specialized knowledge that the judge does not have in order to provide the judge with the objective conditions they require to make the best decision possible by basing their findings on the technical clarification of controversial issues.

In summary, the NCPC values expert knowledge, demands greater transparency for expert appointments, and reinforces the courts' need for specialized technical knowledge in order to corroborate the principles of morality, transparency, impersonality, and efficiency. The NCPC's innovations bear in mind that the judicial process, and not the judge, is the actual recipient of expert evidence.

In all cases analyzed, aiming at the invalidity of the plaintiff's claim for damages, the defendants used the understanding of the CFM as part of their legal argumentation. The 4th Article of the CFM Resolution No. 1621 of May 16, 2001, published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2001, rectified in the Federal Register No. 14 of January 21, 2002, defines the medical act in plastic surgery - as in all medical practice - as an obligation of means, not of result.4

However, this study's analyses of 106 judgments indicate that the CFM's understanding - although cited by 100% of the defendants - was not cited by the judges in any of these judgments.

Physicians' civil liability is based on the theory of guilt - that is, there must be guilt in the actions of the physician. In the Brazilian legal system, this guilt manifests itself through intent. It is unlikely that such guilt would manifest itself in cases of medical error, because such guilt requires conscious and deliberate intent to cause harm, or a reasonable assumption that it may occur. However, such guilt would undoubtedly manifest itself in physicians' negligence, imprudence, or malpractice. The presence of one or more of these characterizes physicians' guilt in a narrow sense.6

Guilt as a cause of liability for damages is well-provided under Brazilian law in Article 186 of the Civil Code: "Whoever, through voluntary action or omission, negligence or imprudence, violates a right and causes damage to another, even if exclusively moral, commits an unlawful act."7 This is complemented by Article 951 of the same Civil Code, verbis:

The provisions of articles 948, 949 and 950 also applies in the case of damages due by one who, in the exercise of a professional activity, by negligence, imprudence or malpractice, causes the death of a patient, aggravates his illness, causes injury or disables him to work7.

In the same vein, a paragraph of Article 14 of the Consumer Protection Code (Law No. 8,078 of September 11, 1990) states: "The personal liability of self-employed professionals shall be ascertained by the verification of guilt."8

It is possible to defend physicians' liability by claiming force majeure, a fortuitous event, and/or exclusive guilt of the patient or a third party unrelated to the provision of professional medical service. The latter two are provided in the Consumer Protection Code in Article 14, Item II, Paragraph 3: "The service provider shall not be liable except when he proves: (...) II - the exclusive guilt of the consumer or third party."8 As for claims of force majeure or a fortuitous event, Article 393 of the Brazilian Civil Code provides these as excluding liability for damages resulting from breach of contract. It states: "The debtor is not liable for damages resulting from fortuitous event and force majeure (...). Sole paragraph. A fortuitous event or force majeure is verified in the necessary fact, whose effect could not be prevented or avoided."7

Brazilian jurists and courts accept an obligation of result in the service relationship established between physicians and plastic surgery patients, but not in relation to reparative and restorative plastic surgery (which would fall under an obligation of means). The opinions of jurists and case laws which formed most of the judges' decisions in the judgments analyzed in this study are found below.

The most cited case laws in the judgments were:

    a) "Civil and consumer procedural law. Special appeal. Action for cosmetic and material damages. Aesthetic surgery. Obligation of result. Shift of the burden of proof. Rule of instruction. Analyzed articles: 6th , viii, and 14, head provision and § 4th , of the consumer protection code. 1. Action for material and cosmetic damage, filed on September 14, 2005. This special appeal was extracted from this action, under advisement on June 25, 2013. 2. Controversy about the physician's responsibility for cosmetic surgery and the possibility of shifting the burden of proof. 3. Cosmetic surgery is an obligation of result, since the service provider accepts to achieve a specific result, which is the core of the obligation itself, without which it will not be performed. 4. In these hypotheses, there is the presumption of guilt with a shift in the burden of proof. 5. The use of the appropriate technique in cosmetic surgery is not sufficient to exempt the physician from the guilt of not fulfilling his obligation. 6. The opinion of the 2nd Section, after the judgment of responsibility 802.832/MG, Reporting Justice Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino, Court Register of 09.21.2011, established that the shifting of the burden of proof is a rule of instruction, not of judgment. 7. Special appeal known and granted." (Resp. 1395.254/SC, Third Panel, Reporting Justice Nancy Andrighi, tried on 10/15/2013, Court Register of 11/29/2013): Caselaw cited in 16 out of 106 cases evaluated (cases 7, 11, 13, 18, 20, 35, 39, 47, 51, 67, 73, 82, 85, 89, 95, 102).

    b) "The Superior Court of Justice stated that the physician who performs cosmetic plastic surgery assumes obligation of result (Resp. 81.101/PR, Reporting Justice Waldemar Zveiter, Federal Court Register of 05.31.1999 in RSTJ 119/290; Resp. 326.014/RJ, Court Register of 10.29.2001." Case law was cited in eight of the 106 cases evaluated in this study (cases 5, 6, 22, 36, 61, 63, 83, 104).

    The most cited jurists in the judgments were:

    a) Rui Stoco: "What is important to consider is that nowadays the professional in the field of plastic surgery promises a certain result (in fact, this is his core activity) predicting, even in detail, this new desired aesthetic result. Some even use computer software to show the edited new image (nose, mouth, eyes, breasts, buttocks etc.) on a computer screen or printed for the customer to decide. A contractual obligation of result that must be honored is undoubtedly stablished between physician and patient" (Stoco R. Responsabilidade civil e sua interpretação judicial. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais; 1994, p. 298). Cited in seven out of 106 cases evaluated (cases: 9, 18, 46, 52, 61, 85, 92).

    b) Sérgio Cavalieri Filho: "The Consumer Protection Code contains no special privileged regime for self-employed professionals; it merely states that the determination of their responsibility would continue to be stablished based on guilt, according to the traditional system. Thus, the rules of subjective liability with proof of guilt continue to apply to them in cases where they assume an obligation of means; and the rules of subjective liability with presumption of guilt in cases where they assume an obligation of result," Filho concluded, emphasizing that "[...] in the case of failure in cosmetic surgery, because it is an obligation of result, there will be a presumption of the guilt of the physician who performed it, and it is up to him to eliminate this presumption by proving the occurrence of an imponderable factor that could eliminate his duty to compensate" (...) The obvious, which follows from the rules of common experience, cannot be denied; no one bears the risks of surgery, nor is willing to spend a lot of money to look the same or worse. The desired result is clear and precise, so that if it cannot be achieved, it will be up to the physician to prove that the total or partial failure of the surgery was due to imponderable factors." (Cavalieri Filho S. Programa de responsabilidade civil. São Paulo: Editora Malheiros; 2010). Cited in ten out of 106 cases evaluated (cases: 13, 26, 34, 35, 46, 47, 51, 53, 54, 57).

CONCLUSIONS

This study reached two major conclusions. First, a total of 102 judgments agreed with the expert reports, and only four judgments differed from the understanding of the expert report (cases 9, 18, 19, and 89). Of these four outliers, claims were granted in three cases (cases 9, 18, and 89) due to the fact the plaintiffs could not produce a signed Informed Consent Form, revealing their supposed ignorance of the risks they took on by agreeing to undergo surgery. The other case in which the judge's decision to grant the claim differed from the expert analysis (case 19) was decided on the grounds of alleged false advertising. In this case, the patient received a hair transplant and was not satisfied with the result. The expert analysis did not identify any medical error in this case. Nevertheless, the court understood that the physician's advertisement on social media (Facebook) guaranteed a 100% success rate; therefore, the advertisement created an obligation to result, which was not fulfilled. Here is the judge's decision: "The case file shows, especially in the expert report, that the plaintiff is severely bald. The same report also shows that the surgical technique used by the defendant for hair implantation was adequate, with no indication of malpractice (page 207). Therefore, it could be strictly concluded that the defendant, in the exercise of his professional activity, acted in accordance with the law, and this would exempt him from liability for the failure of the surgery. It turns out, however, that by advertising his work on social media (Facebook), he ensured 100% success ‘in hair growth after hair transplantation,' so that the patient would have the same hair he had 20 or 30 years ago (page 87). That is, he guaranteed the result and was obliged to it, as stated in Article 30 of the Consumer Protection Code, and nothing in the file shows that the plaintiff did not follow the postoperative medical recommendations. His obligation, therefore, was of result, not of means; consequently, if the expected result is not obtained, the physician is civilly responsible for the damages caused to the consumer." (Court of justice of the state of são paulo - judicial district of ribeirão preto - jurisdiction of ribeirão preto, 4th civil court, ribeirão preto - sp - judgment: digital lawsuit no. 100782760.2015.8.26.0506)

The high rate of agreement between expert analysis and judgment in this study demonstrates the crucial importance of expert reports in defining judicial judgments in the Brazilian legal system.

Second, analyzing all 106 judgments, we noticed that in no case did the judges consider the 4th Article of the CFM Resolution No. 1621 of May 16, 2001, published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2001, rectified in the Federal Register No. 14 of January 21, 2002. Even in the cases denied, the understanding considered expert reports, the basis of the Civil Code and Consumer Protection Code, and the jurists and case laws previously cited.

COLLABORATIONS

FHJO

Analysis and/or data interpretation, Conception and design study, Data Curation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing - Original Draft Preparation

REFERENCES

1. International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS). ISAPS Global Statistics - 2016 [Internet]. Hanover, NH: ISAPS; 2016; [acesso em 2017 dez 12]. Disponível em: www.isaps.org/medical-professionals/isaps-global-statistics

2. Conselho Regional de Medicina do Estado de São Paulo (CREMESP). Denúncias e processos relacionados ao exercício profissional da medicina no Estado de São Paulo no período de 2000 a 2006. São Paulo: CREMESP; 9 de outubro de 2007.

3. Mélega JM. Cirurgia plástica: fundamentos e arte - Princípios gerais. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara-Koogan; 2009. v. 1.

4. Conselho Federal de Medicina (Brasil). Resolução nº 1.621, de 16 de maio de 2011. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília (DF), 6 jun 2001: Seção 1: 40; Poder Executivo. RETIFICAÇÃO. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília (DF), n. 14, de 21 jan 2002: Seção 1: 337; Poder Executivo. RETIFICAÇÃO. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília (DF), n. 17, de 24 jan 2002: Seção 1: 267.

5. Lei nº 13.105 de 16 de março de 2015 (BR). Código de Processo Civil. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília (DF), 16 mar 2015: Seção 1: 1.

6. Souza NTC. Da responsabilidade civil do médico [Internet]. Brasília (DF): Portal do Conselho Federal de Medicina (CFM); 1999 Nov; [acesso em 2017 dez 12]. Disponível em: http://portal.cfm.org.br/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=20338

7. Lei nº 10.406, de 10 de janeiro de 2002 (BR). Institui o Código Civil. Diário Oficial da União [Internet], Brasília (DF). 10 jan 2002; [acesso em 2017 dez 12]. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/CCivil_03/leis/2002/L10406.htm

8. Lei nº. 8078, de 11 de setembro de 1990 (BR). Código de Defesa do Consumidor. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília (DF), 12 set 1990: Seção 1: 1.

Cases: Judgment Database - Website of the Superior Justice Court of São Paulo - SP.

CASE 1: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO JOSÉ DOS CAMPOS, JURISDICTION OF SÃO JOSÉ DOS CAMPOS, 4th CIVIL COURT. Avenida Salmão, 678, São José dos Campos - SP - Physical lawsuit No. 001315367.2013.8.26.0577.
 
CASE 2: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 33rd CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - Physical lawsuit No. 0169102-65.2010.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 3: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, 45th CENTRAL CIVIL COURT OF THE CAPITAL. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, 14º andar - sala nº 1.425, CENTRO, SÃO PAULO - SP - Lawsuit No. 1028970-28.2016.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 4: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 4th CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - Digital lawsuit No. 1031244-96.2015.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 5: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 45th CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - Lawsuit No. 1088146-06.2014.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 6: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 41st CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - Digital lawsuit No. 1034996-76.2015.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 7: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PIRACICABA, JURISDICTION OF PIRACICABA, 3rd CIVIL COURT. Rua Bernardino de Campos, 55, Piracicaba - SP - Physical lawsuit No. 0031936-68.2011.8.26.0451.
 
CASE 8: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, X REGIONAL JURISDICTION - IPIRANGA, 1st CIVIL COURT. Rua Agostinho Gomes, 1455, São Paulo - SP - Digital lawsuit No. 100079503.2016.8.26.0010.
 
CASE 9: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF RIBEIRÃO PRETO, JURISDICTION OF RIBEIRÃO. Lawsuit No. 1007827-60.2015.8.26.0506.
 
CASE 10: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF CAMPINAS, JURISDICTION OF CAMPINAS, 9th CIVIL COURT. Avenida Francisco Xavier de Arruda Camargo, Campinas - SP - Digital lawsuit No. 401375788.2013.8.26.0114.
 
CASE 11: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MARACAÍ, JURISDICTION OF MARACAÍ, SINGLE COURT. Avenida São Paulo, 440, Maracaí - SP - Physical lawsuit No. 0000949-54.2012.8.26.0341.
 
CASE 12: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SANTO ANDRÉ, JURISDICTION OF SANTO ANDRÉ, 5th CIVIL COURT. Rua José Caballero, 3, Santo André - SP - JUDGMENT: Digital lawsuit No. 100585542.2014.8.26.0554.
 
CASE 13: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SANTO ANDRÉ, JURISDICTION OF SANTO ANDRÉ, 5th CIVIL COURT. Rua José Caballero, 03, Santo André - SP - JUDGMENT: Digital lawsuit No. 101606810.2014.8.26.0554.
 
CASE 14: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SANTOS, JURISDICTION OF SANTOS, 9th CIVIL COURT. Rua Bittencourt, 144, Santos - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0018770-53.2013.8.26.0562.
 
CASE 15: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF GUARUJÁ, JURISDICTION OF GUARUJÁ, 3rd CIVIL COURT. Rua Silvio Daige, 280, Guarujá - SP -JUDGMENT: Digital lawsuit No. 4003888-65.2013.8.26.0223.
 
CASE 16: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF JANDIRA, JURISDICTION OF JANDIRA, 1st COURT. Avenida Antônio Bardella, 401, Jandira - SP - JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 1000966-97.2015.8.26.0299.
 
CASE 17: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SANTOS, JURISDICTION OF SANTOS, 4th CIVIL COURT. Rua Bittencourt, 144, Santos - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0014170-23.2012.8.26.0562.
 
CASE 18. Lawsuit No. 1017471-18.2014.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 19: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF RIBEIRÃO PRETO, JURISDICTION OF RIBEIRÃO PRETO, 4th CIVIL COURT. Ribeirão Preto - SP -JUDGMENT: Digital lawsuit No. 1007827-60.2015.8.26.0506.
 
CASE 20: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SANTO ANDRÉ, JURISDICTION OF SANTO ANDRÉ, 5th CIVIL COURT. Rua José Caballero, 3, Santo André - SP - JUDGMENT: Digital lawsuit No. 100585542.2014.8.26.0554.
 
CASE 21: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 32nd CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Digital lawsuit No. 1062334-93.2013.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 22: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 12th CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - CEP 01501-900 - JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 013848991.2012.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 23: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF AMERICANA, 4th CIVIL COURT. Lawsuit No. 0008683-57.2009.8.26.0019, Lawsuit No. 0008683-57.2009.8.26.0019.
 
CASE 24: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF GUARUJÁ, JURISDICTION OF GUARUJÁ, 4th CIVIL COURT. Rua Silvio Daige, 280, Guarujá - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0000356-59.2010.8.26.0223.
 
CASE 25: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, XI REGIONAL JURISDICTION - PINHEIROS, 4th CIVIL COURT. Rua Jericó, S/No, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 0005550-26.2012.8.26.0011.
 
CASE 26: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF COTIA, JURISDICTION OF COTIA, 3rd CIVIL COURT. Rua Topázio, 585, Cotia - SP -JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0003106-87.2009.8.26.0152.
 
CASE 27: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 24th CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP -JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0130801-15.2011.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 28: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 10th CIVIL COURT -JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 0017162-02.2010.8.26.0020.
 
CASE 29: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF GUARULHOS, JURISDICTION OF GUARULHOS, 8th CIVIL COURT. Rua José Maurício,103, Guarulhos - SP -JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0012687-41.2008.8.26.0224.
 
CASE 30: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ITANHAÉM, JURISDICTION OF ITANHAÉM, 1st COURT. Avenida Rui Barbosa, 867, Itanhaém - SP -JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0001753-19.2013.8.26.0266.
 
CASE 31: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 34th  CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP -JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0121533-39.2008.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 32: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, VII REGIONAL JURISDICTION  - ITAQUERA, 2nd CIVIL COURT. Avenida Pires do Rio, 3915, sala no 14 -JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 0006623-45.2012.8.26.0007.
 
CASE 33: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF OSASCO, JURISDICTION OF OSASCO, 7th CIVIL COURT. Avenida das Flores, 703, Osasco - SP -JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0041748-44.2012.8.26.0405.
 
CASE 34: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TREMEMBÉ, JURISDICTION OF TREMEMBÉ, 2nd COURT. Rua Costa Cabral, 1183, Tremembé - SP -JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0007828-71.2012.8.26.0634.
 
CASE 35: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF RIBEIRÃO PRETO, JURISDICTION OF RIBEIRÃO PRETO, 10th COURT - JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 0060693-04.2011.8.26.0506.
 
CASE 36: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 41st CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP -JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0064090-91.2012.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 37: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 17th CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP -JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0184779-67.2012.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 38: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, I REGIONAL JURISDICTION - SANTANA, 3rd CIVIL COURT. Avenida Engenheiro Caetano Álvares, 594, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0001683-89.2011.8.26.0001.
 
CASE 39: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 26th CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0146815-74.2011.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 40: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PIRASSUNUNGA, JURISDICTION OF PIRASSUNUNGA, 1st COURT. Rua José Bonifácio, 70, Pirassununga - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 000782361.2013.8.26.0457.
 
CASE 41: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 38th CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0256321-24.2007.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 42: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 3rd CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0189771-42.2010.8.26.0100;
 
CASE 43: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PIRASSUNUNGA, JURISDICTION OF PIRASSUNUNGA, 2nd COURT. Rua José Bonifácio, 70, Pirassununga - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 000225336.2009.8.26.0457.
 
CASE 44: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO JOSÉ DOS CAMPOS, JURISDICTION OF SÃO JOSÉ DOS CAMPOS, 4th CIVIL COURT. Avenida Salmão, 678, São José dos Campos - SP - JUDGMENT: Digital lawsuit No. 1004019-62.2014.8.26.0577.
 
CASE 45: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF RIBEIRÃO PRETO, JURISDICTION OF RIBEIRÃO PRETO, 1st CIVIL COURT. Rua Alice Alem Saad, 1010, Ribeirão Preto - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 002932992.2003.8.26.0506.
 
CASE 46: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF COSMÓPOLIS, JURISDICTION OF COSMÓPOLIS, SINGLE COURT. Rua Ramos De Azevedo, 365, Cosmópolis - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 000039671.2007.8.26.0150.
 
CASE 47: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 43rd CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, 14º andar - salas nº 1407 / 1403, Centro, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Digital lawsuit No. 1009273-65.2014.8.26.0011.
 
CASE 48: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SANTO ANDRÉ, JURISDICTION OF SANTO ANDRÉ, 5th CIVIL COURT. Rua José Caballero, 3, Santo André - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 004486178.2011.8.26.0554.
 
CASE 49: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF CAMPINAS, JURISDICTION OF CAMPINAS, 2nd CIVIL COURT. Avenida Francisco Xavier de Arruda Camargo, 300, Campinas - SP - JUDGMENT: Digital lawsuit No. 4031962-68.2013.8.26.0114.
 
CASE 50: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 17th CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0163317-59.2009.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 51: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, II REGIONAL JURISDICTION - SANTO AMARO, 2nd CIVIL COURT. Avenida das Nações Unidas, 22939, 12º ANDAR, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0083077-81.2012.8.26.0002.
 
CASE 52: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO JOSÉ DO RIO PRETO, JURISDICTION OF SÃO JOSÉ DO RIO PRETO, 3rd CIVIL COURT. Rua Abdo Muanis, 991, São José do Rio Preto - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0020475-49.2010.8.26.0576.
 
CASE 53: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 19th CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 0080559-18.2012.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 54: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SANTOS, JURISDICTION OF SANTOS, 1st CIVIL COURT. Rua Bittencourt, 144, Santos - SP - JUDGMENT: Digital lawsuit No. 4013023-54.2013.8.26.0562.
 
CASE 55: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO BERNARDO DO CAMPO, JURISDICTION OF SÃO BERNARDO DO CAMPO, 1st  CIVIL COURT. Rua Vinte e Três de Maio, 107, São Bernardo do Campo - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0017305-71.2011.8.26.0564.
 
CASE 56: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 43rd CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, 14º andar - salas nº 1407 / 1403, Centro, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Digital lawsuit No. 1015455-91.2014.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 57: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF OURINHOS, JURISDICTION OF OURINHOS, 3rd CIVIL COURT. Rua Expedicionário, 1895, Ourinhos - SP - JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 0018172-47.2011.8.26.0408.
 
CASE 58: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF AMPARO, JURISDICTION OF AMPARO, 1st COURT. Praça Tenente José Ferraz De Oliveira, 55, Amparo - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0009585-69.2007.8.26.0022.
 
CASE 59: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, III REGIONAL JURISDICTION - JABAQUARA, 5th CIVIL COURT. Rua Afonso Celso, 1065, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0116072-86.2008.8.26.0003.
 
CASE 60: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LIMEIRA, JURISDICTION OF LIMEIRA, 1st CIVIL COURT. Rua Boa Morte, 661, Limeira - SP - JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 4000688-50.2013.8.26.0320.
 
CASE 61: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 45th CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 1060590-63.2013.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 62: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DOIS CÓRREGOS, JURISDICTION OF DOIS CÓRREGOS, 1st COURT. Praça Francisco Simões, 142, Dois Córregos - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 3002137-40.2013.8.26.0165.
 
CAS0 63: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ITANHAÉM, JURISDICTION OF ITANHAÉM, 1st COURT. Avenida Rui Barbosa, 867, Itanhaém - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0003853-78.2012.8.26.0266.
 
CASE 64: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 5th CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No.0180593-35.2011.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 65: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF BRAGANÇA PAULISTA, JURISDICTION OF BRAGANÇA PAULISTA, 3rd COURT -  JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 0000488-71.2008.8.26.0099.
 
CASE 66: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, V REGIONAL JURISDICTION - SÃO MIGUEL PAULISTA, 4th CIVIL COURT. Avenida Afonso Lopes de Baião, 1736, São Paulo - SP - Lawsuit No. 0034565-58.2012.8.26.0005
 
CASE 67: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, FORO REGIONAL VIII - TATUAPÉ, 3rd CIVIL COURT. Rua Santa Maria, 257, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 1009249-46.2014.8.26.0008.
 
CASE 68: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 1st CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0105003-57.2008.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 69: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MOGI DAS CRUZES, JURISDICTION OF MOGI DAS CRUZES, 2nd CIVIL COURT. Avenida Candido Xavier de Almeida e Souza, 159, Mogi das Cruzes - SP - JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 1000329-57.2015.8.26.0361.
 
CASE 70: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF CAMPINAS, JURISDICTION OF CAMPINAS, 3rd CIVIL COURT. Avenida Francisco Xavier de Arruda Camargo, 300, Campinas - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0066093-11.2011.8.26.0114.
 
CASE 71: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO BERNARDO DO CAMPO, 6th CIVIL COURT, 1st MINUTES OF THE HEARING - CONCILIAÇÃO AND TRIAL - Lawsuit No. 0009807-50.2013.8.26.0564.
 
CASE 72: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PRAIA GRANDE, JURISDICTION OF PRAIA GRANDE, 2nd CIVIL COURT. Avenida Dr. Roberto de Almeida Vinhas, 9101, Praia Grande - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0004150-68.2011.8.26.0477.
 
CASE 73: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DIADEMA, JURISDICTION OF DIADEMA, 2nd CIVIL COURT. Avenida Sete de Setembro, 409/413, Diadema - SP - JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 1009806-59.2014.8.26.0161.
 
CASE 74: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FRANCA, JURISDICTION OF FRANCA, 5th CIVIL COURT. Avenida Presidente Vargas, 2650, Franca - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0026331-62.2013.8.26.0196.
 
CASE 75: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF CAMPINAS, JURISDICTION OF CAMPINAS, 1st CIVIL COURT - Physical lawsuit No.  401481444.2013.8.26.0114.
 
CASE 76: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, I REGIONAL JURISDICTION - SANTANA, 7th CIVIL COURT. Avenida Engenheiro Caetano Álvares, 594, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Digital lawsuit No. 1089891-55.2013.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 77: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SANTOS, JURISDICTION OF SANTOS, 10th CIVIL COURT. Rua Bittencourt, 144, Santos - SP - JUDGMENT: Digital lawsuit No. 4000192-71.2013.8.26.0562.
 
CASE 78: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, II REGIONAL JURISDICTION - SANTO AMARO, 1st CIVIL COURT. Avenida das Nações Unidas, 22.939, 12º andar, Vila Almeida, São Paulo - SP - CONCLUSION, JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0018667-48.2011.8.26.0002.
 
CASE 79: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SUZANO, JURISDICTION OF SUZANO, 3rd CIVIL COURT. Avenida Paulo Portela, S/Nº, Suzano - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0002430-04.2010.8.26.0606.
 
CASE 80: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO BERNARDO DO CAMPO, JURISDICTION OF SÃO BERNARDO DO CAMPO, 3rd CIVIL COURT. Rua Vinte e Três de Maio, 107, São Bernardo do Campo - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0031213-11.2005.8.26.0564.
 
CASE 81: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, 5th CIVIL COURT - Lawsuit No. 0014697-22.2011.8.26.0008 - p. 1 - JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 0014697-22.2011.8.26.0008.
 
CASE 82: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SUZANO, JURISDICTION OF SUZANO, 1st CIVIL COURT. Avenida Paulo Portela, S/Nº, Suzano - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0003565-95.2003.8.26.0606.
 
CASE 83: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF REGISTRO, JURISDICTION OF REGISTRO, 2nd COURT. Rua Jeronimo Monteiro Lopes, 93, Registro - SP - Lawsuit No. 0007913-86.2012.8.26.0495.
 
CASE 84: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ITANHAÉM, JURISDICTION OF ITANHAÉM, 2nd COURT. Avenida Rui Barbosa, 867, Itanhaém - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0000937-37.2013.8.26.0266.
 
CASE 85: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ASSIS, JURISDICTION OF ASSIS, 3rd CIVIL COURT. Rua Dr. Lycio Brandão de Camargo, 50, Assis - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0014717-22.2013.8.26.0047.
 
CASE 86: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO CAETANO DO SUL, JURISDICTION OF SÃO CAETANO DO SUL, 6th CIVIL COURT. Praça Doutor Joviano Pacheco de Aguirre, S/No, São Caetano do Sul - JUDGMENT: Digital lawsuit No. 4000521-74.2013.8.26.0565.
 
CASE 87: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF AMERICANA, 4th CIVIL COURT - Lawsuit No. 0011685-35.2009.8.26.0019, Lawsuit No. 0011685-35.2009.8.26.0019 - p. 1 - JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 0011685-35.2009.8.26.0019.
 
CASE 88: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 11th CIVIL COURT - JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 1092110-70.2015.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 89: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, III REGIONAL JURISDICTION - JABAQUARA, 2nd CIVIL COURT. Rua Afonso Celso, 1065, SÃO PAULO - SP - JUDGMENT: Digital lawsuit No. 1014560-33.2014.8.26.0003.
 
CASE 90: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SUZANO, JURISDICTION OF SUZANO, 1st CIVIL COURT. Avenida Paulo Portela, S/Nº, Suzano - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0016013-56.2010.8.26.0606.
 
CASE 91: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 43rd CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0136613-04.2012.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 92: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EMBU DAS ARTES, JURISDICTION OF EMBU DAS ARTES, 1st JUDICIAL COURT. Avenida João Batista Medina, 333, Embu das Artes - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0003155-03.2002.8.26.0176.
 
CASE 93: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 5th CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0237938-61.2008.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 94: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, VII REGIONAL JURISDICTION - ITAQUERA, 4th CIVIL COURT. Avenida Pires do Rio, 3915, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 0019465-23.2013.8.26.0007.
 
CASE 95: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF CUBATÃO, JURISDICTION OF CUBATÃO, 3rd COURT. Avenida Joaquim Miguel Couto, 320, Cubatão - SP - JUDGMENT: Lawsuit No. 0005826-75.2010.8.26.0157.
 
CASE 96: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, IX REGIONAL JURISDICTION - VILA PRUDENTE, 3rd CIVIL COURT. Avenida Sapopemba, 3740, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0019116-48.2012.8.26.0009.
 
CASE 97: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SUMARÉ, JURISDICTION OF SUMARÉ, 3rd CIVIL COURT. Rua Antônio De Carvalho, 170, Sumaré - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0012435-96.2007.8.26.0604.
 
CASE 98: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SANTOS, JURISDICTION OF SANTOS, 11th CIVIL COURT. Rua Bittencourt, 144, Santos - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0018133-39.2012.8.26.0562.
 
CASE 99: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 41st CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Physical lawsuit No. 0202192-30.2011.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 100: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 10th CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - JUDGMENT: Digital lawsuit No. 1005384-30.2014.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 101: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 34th CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - CEP 01501 - Physical lawsuit No. 0053384-64.2003.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 102: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 10th CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - CEP 01501 - Physical lawsuit No. 012141070.2010.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 103: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, CENTRAL CIVIL JURISDICTION, 40th CIVIL COURT. Praça João Mendes, S/Nº, São Paulo - SP - CEP 01501 - Physical lawsuit No. 011404040.2010.8.26.0100.
 
CASE 104: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF CAMPINAS, JURISDICTION OF CAMPINAS, 6th CIVIL COURT. Avenida Francisco Xavier de Arruda Camargo, 300, Campinas - SP - Physical lawsuit No. 0063908-73.2006.8.26.0114.
 
CASE 105: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, 2nd TAX COURT - Lawsuit No. 1003297-82.2013.8.26.00531.
 
CASE 106: JUSTICE COURT OF SÃO PAULO, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SÃO PAULO, XII REGIONAL JURISDICTION - NOSSA SENHORA DO Ó, 1st CIVIL COURT. Rua Tomás Ramos Jordão, 101, São Paulo - SP - CEP 02736 - Digital lawsuit No. 0707680-18.2012.8.26.0020.










1. Universidade de São Paulo, Departamento de Medicina Legal, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Institution: Universidade de São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Corresponding author: Fabio Hideki Júlio Oshiro Avenida Angélica, 2491, 9° andar, Bela Vista, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Zip code: 01227-200. E-mail: fabiohideki@hotmail.com

Article received: December 12, 2018.
Article accepted: December 21, 2019.

Conflicts of interest: none.



 

Previous Article Back to Top Next Article

Indexers

Licença Creative Commons All scientific articles published at www.rbcp.org.br are licensed under a Creative Commons license