TSA confirms RD$2.1 million fine for Abel González clinic regarding Jet Set case

The Superior Administrative Court (TSA) upheld a fine of RD$2,189,154.08 imposed on the Dr. Abel González Advanced Medicine Center by the Superintendence of Health and Labor Risks (SISALRIL), because the establishment did not guarantee emergency medical care to two affiliates affected by the collapse of the Jet Set nightclub roof.

The judicial decision ratifies the administrative sanction applied to the health center, after it appealed the resolution issued by the regulatory body of the Dominican Social Security System.

The process originated from a complaint filed with SISALRIL by the General Directorate of Information and Defense of Social Security Affiliates (DIDA), an institution that acted on behalf of the two affected individuals.

TSA rejects appeal from Abel González clinic

The decision is contained in judgment number 0030-04-2026-SSEN-00282, issued on May 22, 2026, by the Third Chamber of the TSA.

Through this ruling, the court rejected the appeal filed by the Dr. Abel González Center for Advanced Medicine and confirmed Resolution DJ-GIS number 0012-2025, issued by SISALRIL on August 13, 2025.

With this ruling, the TSA upheld the financial penalty of RD$2,189,154.08 against the medical establishment for the non-compliance noted by the superintendency.

DIDA represented those affected by the Jet Set tragedy

DIDA’s intervention made it possible to bring the claim related to the emergency care of the two affiliates affected by the collapse of the Jet Set nightclub before the regulatory authority.

The case put under examination the medical center’s performance regarding the need for assistance of patients who required emergency services.

The SISALRIL resolution, subsequently confirmed by the TSA, established the administrative sanction against the clinic for failing to guarantee that care.

The judicial decision represents a favorable outcome for the supervisory entity’s actions in this proceeding, although the information provided does not specify whether the ruling has become final or if there are other pending avenues for appeal.