A real case of screen wall collapse during construction highlights the significant impact on economic and technical aspects. The study describes the damage to the wall before and during the collapse, emphasizing the need to identify causes to prevent future occurrences. The methodology involves a chronological analysis of parameters related to the wall's design and execution. The original geotechnical study, though limited, was optimistic. Engineers must analyze and weigh the importance of these parameters in future designs. The geotechnical study provided average values, so engineers should consider characteristic values or apply adjustments. This decision significantly affects data input into software. The structural design, including reinforcement and temporary anchors, is crucial for increasing safety and reducing collapse risk. Results show that using characteristic geotechnical parameters and sufficient safety factors could have prevented the collapse. The technical solution to a disaster is complex and costly, involving structural modifications and terrain changes. Keywords: Pathology; Wall screen; Intervention plans; Structural evaluation. The collapse occurred due to excessive water flow and inadequate design. The geotechnical study underestimated cohesion, leading to insufficient stability. The design used a single row of anchors and a short embedment, making the structure statically indeterminate. The analysis revealed that using characteristic values and safety factors could have prevented the collapse. The study emphasizes the importance of accurate geotechnical data and proper design to ensure structural stability. The collapse highlights the need for more detailed geotechnical studies and appropriate safety measures in construction projects.A real case of screen wall collapse during construction highlights the significant impact on economic and technical aspects. The study describes the damage to the wall before and during the collapse, emphasizing the need to identify causes to prevent future occurrences. The methodology involves a chronological analysis of parameters related to the wall's design and execution. The original geotechnical study, though limited, was optimistic. Engineers must analyze and weigh the importance of these parameters in future designs. The geotechnical study provided average values, so engineers should consider characteristic values or apply adjustments. This decision significantly affects data input into software. The structural design, including reinforcement and temporary anchors, is crucial for increasing safety and reducing collapse risk. Results show that using characteristic geotechnical parameters and sufficient safety factors could have prevented the collapse. The technical solution to a disaster is complex and costly, involving structural modifications and terrain changes. Keywords: Pathology; Wall screen; Intervention plans; Structural evaluation. The collapse occurred due to excessive water flow and inadequate design. The geotechnical study underestimated cohesion, leading to insufficient stability. The design used a single row of anchors and a short embedment, making the structure statically indeterminate. The analysis revealed that using characteristic values and safety factors could have prevented the collapse. The study emphasizes the importance of accurate geotechnical data and proper design to ensure structural stability. The collapse highlights the need for more detailed geotechnical studies and appropriate safety measures in construction projects.