Ascua CSJN Ruling: Unconstitutionality of Artificial Disability Severance Caps
In 'Ascua, Luis v. Somisa' (August 10, 2010), the Supreme Court invalidated rigid statutory caps that restrict full reparation for permanent bodily and psychological harm.
Apply the Fallo Ascua CSJN precedent to your claim?
Consult Lead Attorney Dr. Guillermo Conti on a pure contingency fee basis:
Essential Conceptual Distinctions
- Binding Doctrine of Fallo Ascua CSJN: Mandatory Supreme Court / CNAT case law.
- Zero Court Filing Fees: Full statutory exemption under Article 20 LCT.
- Pure Contingency Fees: We get paid only upon successful financial recovery.
1. Landmark Holding & Full Reparation Doctrine
The Supreme Court ruled statutory indemnity caps unconstitutional when they compress compensation to confiscatory levels that fail to cover real future lost earnings and diminished quality of life.
2. Invalidation of Restrictive Caps in Injury Litigation
This doctrine empowers plaintiffs to challenge any arbitrary mathematical ceiling that diminishes fair compensation for permanent injuries.
Frequently Asked Questions on the Ruling
What happens if statutory formulas award inadequate compensation for severe injury?
Plaintiffs challenge the statutory cap under the Supreme Court's Ascua and Lucca de Hoz precedents.
What damages are included in full reparation?
Physical impairment, psychological trauma, aesthetic loss, rehabilitation expenses, and future lost earnings.
Does it apply to workers comp and civil lawsuits?
Yes. It applies across statutory LRT claims and common law tort actions.