The U.S. court ruled that the delay in releasing the results was “catastrophic.”

In determining a dispute between two companies in the medical field, the Federal Court of Appeals for the 7th Region in Chicago (USA) devoted the last two paragraphs to a warning to lower court judges: the delay in publishing explanatory decisions is the basis for the judges’ oral decisions at the end of the trial.

In the dispute between (without hope) American Association of Physicians and Surgeons. Board of American Medical BoardIllinois Northern District Judge Andrea Wood announced her decision to close the case on September 30, 2017 (three years after the lockout request).

But its results were not available for publication until December 13, 2017 -75 day interval. The delay gave the failing party, the association, a very short deadline to appeal. And the other party, the Council, still has a short time to respond to the petition of the Association.

In this particular case, a “catastrophe” did not occur. But such delays create the risk of “catastrophe for the parties” Results College of Three Judges of the Federal Court of Appeal.

This is because, according to the court, the period begins to run on the date on which the judge announces his decision at the end of the trial, and not when the decision is published with all its reasons.

“We have already condemned this practice in the past and are starting to do it again today. This time [de anunciar uma decisão hoje e só publicá-la tempos depois] It may benefit from removing the case from the list of pending cases, but it also creates a risk of disaster for the parties. “

The court noted another 2018 decision, Walker WeatherspoonIt states: “Unless immediate notice of decision is required to remove the circumstances [do julgamento], Publication of Court Judgment (Comment) Should be with distribution [oral] Results (Results) “.

According to the APA (American Bar Association) and Agency Reuters, Judge Andrea Wood was involved in a controversy over police searches and seizures 16 months after the initial hearing of the case.

The judge said the complexity of the dispute and the delay in giving the parties extra time to file sub-petitions, according to reports from the Federal Court overseeing petitions that have been pending for more than six months.