Citizens against the State: the riddle of high impact, low functionality courts in Brazil

The Brazilian federal judiciary offers an interesting riddle to scholars of judicial politics and policy change. While the courts have played a major policy role over the past two decades, constraining and altering federal policy across a range of subjects, the court system has simultaneously been labeled "dysfunctional." This paper investigates this riddle: a system plagued by major systemic flaws in its day-to-day operations, which nonetheless still manages to exert a powerful influence on public policy in Brazil. I adopt a new institutional perspective, focusing on how the institutional and normative structure within which judges and other legal actors operate affects policy outcomes.

Legal and health variations in drug litigation injunctions granted in Minas Gerais

OBJECTIVE To investigate the factors related to the granting of preliminary court orders [injunctions] in drug litigations. METHODS A retrospective descriptive study of drug lawsuits in the State of Minas Gerais, Southeastern Brazil, was conducted from October 1999 to 2009. The database consists of 6,112 lawsuits, out of which 6,044 had motions for injunctions and 5,167 included the requisition of drugs. Those with more than one beneficiary were excluded, which totaled 5,072 examined suits. The variables for complete, partial, and suppressed motions were treated as dependent and assessed in relation to those that were independent – lawsuits (year, type, legal representation, defendant, court in which it was filed, adjudication time), drugs (level five of the anatomical therapeutic chemical classification), and diseases (chapter of the International Classification of Diseases). Statistical analyses were performed using the Chi-square test. RESULTS Out of the 5,072 lawsuits with injunctions, 4,184 (82.5%) had the injunctions granted. Granting varied from 95.8% of the total lawsuits in 2004 to 76.9% in 2008. Where there was legal representation, granting exceeded 80.0% and in lawsuits without representation, it did not exceed 66.9%. In public civil actions (89.1%), granting was higher relative to ordinary lawsuits (82.8%) and injunctions (80.1%). Federal courts granted only 68.6% of the injunctions, while the state courts granted 84.8%. Diseases of the digestive system and neoplasms received up to 87.0% in granting, while diseases of the nervous system, mental and behavioral disorders, and diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue received granting below 78.6% and showed a high proportion of suspended injunctions (10.9%). Injunctions involving paroxetine, somatropin, and ferrous sulfate drugs were all granted, while less than 54.0% of those involving escitalopram, sodium diclofenac, and nortriptyline were granted. CONCLUSIONS There are significant differences in the granting of injunctions, depending on the procedural and clinical variances. Important trends in the pattern of judicial action were observed, particularly, in the reduced granting [of injunctions] over the period.

Forensic neuropsychological assessment: clinical case of depression and working incapacity

Issues related to mental health in relation to court matters have increasingly required the participation of the psychologist. We present the use of forensic neuropsychological assessment in a case of retirement reversal. Incapacity was attested due to disability resulting from depression of a 35-year-old attorney, and the case was forwarded from the courts to the Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology Unit at the USP Clinical Hospital. A clinical interview and application of cognitive tests was conducted. Despite the depression, significant cognitive losses that would prevent return to his professional assignments were not detected. The neuropsychological assessment has been shown to be an important tool in the forensic context, as it assists with diagnostic value for clarification of functional aspects in the various psychopathological areas in terms of disabilities or potentialities.

Should I go to court?: an assessment of the role of the Judiciary in disputes between cattle raisers and meatpackers in Brazil

The main objective of this perspective paper is to analyze the role of the judiciary in resolving conflicts between cattle raisers and meatpacking firms in Brazil. Looking at the transaction for the acquisition of cattle for slaughter in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul (the central-western region of Brazil), the analysis encompasses three steps. First, the authors describe the transaction pattern between cattle raisers and meatpacking firms, identifying a guarantee vacuum within the supply chain. Secondly, the authors present evidence that the guarantee vacuum may give rise to legal conflicts of non-payment, which are indeed prevalent in disputes that reach the courts. Finally, the role of the judiciary in resolving these conflicts is investigated. Results suggest that, on average, producers have little confidence in the legal system, indicating the potential function that informal mechanisms may play in the supply chain. The paper concludes by suggesting some implications for public and private strategies.

Judiciário e política regulatória: instituições e preferências sob a ótica dos custos de transação

Judiciary and regulatory policy. Increasingly, judges and the courts appear as actors capable of affecting the trajectory of the government decisions, as strategic agents in the policy process. This paper presents an analytical model able to clearly and objectively measure the impact of judicial review in the design of policies in the sphere of economic regulation. Underlying the model is the concept of transaction costs, through which one can raise the levels of intervention of the judiciary in regulatory policy. In addition to the analytical model, the article demonstrates that the interaction between the heterogeneity of preferences in the courts and institutional mechanisms of the justice system is capable of generating greater coordination and cooperation than expected.