O processo de redemocratização e constitucionalização abrangente que marcou o período pós-Segunda Guerra Mundial, o fortalecimento do Poder Judiciário e dos demais órgãos de controle, e a positivação do Direito Fundamental à Saúde na Constituição de 1988 contribuíram, naturalmente, para aumentar as demandas judiciais em saúde no Brasil. O fenômeno, denominado judicialização da saúde , despertou a atenção dos profissionais da Saúde e do Direito, tornou-se palco de grandes embates, e provocou o desenvolvimento de estudos que buscaram desvendar os reais fatores que contribuem para o fenômeno, suas principais características e impactos na sociedade. Todavia, nenhum dos estudos anteriores analisou o que se denominou judicialização residual da saúde , somente possível de ser identificada a partir da observação da demanda atendida por intermédio dos convênios firmados com a DPE/RJ. A experiência prática desta Defensoria revelou que esta demanda varia de acordo com as características de cada Município. Como esta judicialização passa pela análise técnica dos entes públicos e por tentativas prévias de resolução administrativa, e permite conhecer as motivações do Poder Público que provocaram o uso da via judicial, observou-se que ela poderia permitir o encontro de resultados empíricos mais robustos e precisos quanto aos fatores que determinam ou contribuem para o fenômeno e, ainda, constituir um forte indicativo da efetividade do Direito à Saúde e do próprio desempenho dos serviços de saúde. Planejou-se uma pesquisa com o objetivo de analisar a demanda judicial residual em saúde proposta pela DPE/RJ em dois Municípios deste Estado. Foram analisados pedidos judiciais de medicamentos, insumos / materiais médicos, consultas, exames, cirurgias, procedimentos, leitos de inter- nação e transporte. Apenas 2% e 0,3% dos medicamentos solicitados em cada Município não possuem registro na Anvisa.The process of re-democratization and comprehensive constitutionalisation that marked the post-World War II period, the strengthening of the Judiciary and other control bodies, and the affirmation of the Fundamental Right to Health in the 1988 Constitution naturally contributed to increase the lawsuits in Brazil. The phenomenon, called "judicialization of health", aroused the attention of Health and Law professionals, became the scene of major clashes, and provoked the development of studies that sought to unravel the real factors that contribute to the phenomenon, its main characteristics and impacts in society. However, none of the previous studies analyzed what was called "residual health judicialization", only possible to be identified from the observation of the demand served through the agreements signed with DPE / RJ. The practical experience of this Office has revealed that this demand varies according to the characteristics of each Municipality. As this judicialization involves the technical analysis of public entities and previous attempts at administrative resolution, and allows us to know the motivations of Public Power that provoked the use of judicial channels, it was observed that it could allow the meeting of more robust empirical results and precise as to the factors that determine or contribute to the phenomenon and also constitute a strong indication of the effectiveness of the Right to Health and the proper performance of health services. A research was planned with the objective of analyzing the residual judicial claim in health proposed by DPE / RJ in two Municipalities of this State. Judicial requests for medicines, medical supplies / materials, consultations, examinations, surgeries, procedures, hospital beds and transportation were analyzed. Only 2% and 0.3% of the medicines requested in each municipality are not registered in Anvisa. There was a significant judicial demand for selected health benefits due to the insufficient availability of SUS. Unselected health benefits were judicially prosecuted in situations where the system does not offer an effective therapeutic alternative, and the refusal of administrative provision was motivated by the absence of selection. This judicialization expresses the inability of the health system to provide the necessary care and services at the right time and in the right place and with respect for human dignity. And it may represent, therefore, a qualified indication of the degree of performance of health services and the effectiveness of the Right to Health. Even if law professionals strive to dialogue and appropriate public policies, judicialization will persist if power Audience does not do its part.