Santiago, Chile – A Chilean notary is mounting a high-stakes legal challenge to a $317 million judgment against her, alleging that fraudulent medical documentation formed the basis of her former employee’s successful workplace mistreatment claim. The case,currently before the Supreme Court,highlights growing concerns over the integrity of medical evidence in Chilean labor disputes adn could set a precedent for similar cases nationwide. A physician at the center of the dispute is currently under examination for allegedly issuing falsified medical leave certificates, further complicating the proceedings.
A Chilean notary is challenging a multi-million dollar judgment against her, alleging fraud in the medical documentation used to support her former employee’s claims of workplace mistreatment. The case underscores the potential for abuse within the legal system through falsified medical records.
Myriam Amigo Arancibia appealed to the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the labor court ruling and halt collection efforts exceeding $317 million. The original judgment stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Ana Marcela Biagini, who alleged fundamental rights violations and wrongful termination.
Questioned Medical Evaluations
The labor court previously found Biagini suffered anxiety and depression due to mistreatment while employed at the notary’s office. This determination heavily relied on eight medical leave certificates and related medical reports provided by Dr. Luis Tapia Brevis. The court also considered testimony from three former notary employees and a medical assessment from the Consalud Isapre Medical Controller.
However, Amigo’s defense team, led by José Luis de Marchena, now argues that evidence used to support the initial ruling is compromised. They point to the recent formalization of an investigation into Dr. Tapia Brevis for allegedly issuing fraudulent medical certificates.
Doctor Faces Charges
On November 4, Dr. Tapia Brevis was formally charged and placed under restrictions, including a travel ban and suspension from issuing medical leave, pending the outcome of the investigation. Amigo’s legal team submitted documentation to the Supreme Court stating, “There is sufficient evidence to suggest that Ms. Biagini’s medical leave certificates are part of the modus operandi of the accused, Luis Tapia Brevis.”
In addition to challenging the validity of the medical evidence, Amigo is requesting the court suspend the collection process and halt the monthly accrual of interest on the debt, which she deems disproportionate. According to reports, the initial judgment of $126 million has ballooned to $317 million over five years, despite Amigo claiming to have already paid $64 million towards the settlement.
“The notary, Ms. M. Amigo, was condemned as an alleged violator of fundamental rights, where one of the foundational documents that led the judge to reach that conviction was precisely the issuance of medical leave for mental health granted fraudulently to the plaintiff by a person who doesn’t even have a specialization in psychiatry and who is currently facing charges,” explained De Marchena.
He added, “It seems only just that the Supreme Court order the annulment of the sentence and reject the claim, as there is no real evidence of the alleged violation, or at least order a new trial.”
Counterargument from Plaintiff
Biagini’s attorney, Christian Valdebenito, filed an opposition to the review request, arguing it was submitted outside the legal one-year deadline and does not meet the requirements outlined in Article 810. Valdebenito dismissed the claims regarding fraudulent medical certificates as speculative, citing the Consalud medical assessment – conducted by a different physician – which confirmed his client’s emotional distress.
Valdebenito further asserted that Amigo has repeatedly attempted to avoid payment, filing appeals with the Constitutional Tribunal, the Supreme Court, administrative complaints, and criminal charges. He accused Amigo of deliberately delaying the execution of the judgment, stating that after five years, his client has received only 5% of the awarded amount.
“The notary does not want to pay the sentence because she believes the amount is excessive, as she stated in the preparatory hearing on January 10, 2020, by refusing to accept her client’s length of service, disregarding the employment contract signed on March 3, 2014, and what is established in Article 4, final paragraph, of the Labor Code,” Valdebenito argued.
He detailed Amigo’s numerous legal maneuvers to avoid payment, including objections, appeals, and requests to the Constitutional Tribunal, all of which were rejected. He also mentioned attempted lawsuits for false testimony and defamation against Biagini and her witnesses.
