Audiência Cível 10 - Ação Acidentária contra o INSS

Summary

In a legal hearing regarding a workplace injury claim, Edgar Santos de Souza seeks indemnity from the INSS for an accident at work in 2009. Despite suffering an ankle injury while lifting boxes, the company delayed the necessary documentation and failed to provide adequate safety measures. Witnesses confirm the poor working conditions and inadequate response from the employer. The court has authorized the collection of further evidence to establish a connection between the injury and Edgar’s disability, with a focus on ensuring the legal process is thoroughly examined.

Takeaways

• 😀 The case involves Edgar Santos de Souza, who is seeking compensation for a work-related accident in a lawsuit against the INSS (National Institute of Social Security).
• 😀 The hearing is being conducted with the presence of the plaintiff’s lawyer, the INSS’s representative, and witnesses.
• 😀 The plaintiff, Edgar, was employed at a cooperative that handled eggs and dairy products, working in general services.
• 😀 Edgar’s workplace accident occurred in 2009, when he injured his ankle while handling boxes, though it was only officially reported by the company in 2012.
• 😀 The plaintiff did not initially seek compensation for the injury, as the company only acknowledged the accident after Edgar was dismissed in late 2011.
• 😀 A key issue in the case is the delay in reporting the work accident and the failure to issue the required Accident Report (CAT) by the employer.
• 😀 During the accident, Edgar was not using sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE), with the company only providing basic ear protection and light clothing.
• 😀 Witness testimonies suggest that Edgar's injury occurred when he twisted his ankle while handling pallets, which were used to elevate goods from the ground.
• 😀 One of the witnesses, Renato Paixão, confirmed that Edgar was working in the same company at the time of the accident, but noted that the company's safety measures were inadequate.
• 😀 The plaintiff is requesting that the court order the company to submit his professional profile to aid in determining the causal link between the injury and his current disability, with a request for a complementary expert report.

Q & A

What is the primary subject of the legal case in the transcript?

The legal case revolves around Edgar Santos de Souza's claim for worker’s compensation, following an injury he suffered at work in 2009. The injury involved a sprained ankle while moving pallets, and the case concerns the delay in the company acknowledging the accident.

What was the nature of Edgar Santos de Souza’s workplace injury?

Edgar Santos de Souza suffered a sprained ankle in 2009 while working at a cooperative. The injury occurred while he was moving heavy pallets of goods, and he had to undergo surgery for the injury, which was not formally recognized until 2012.

Why was the workplace injury not formally recognized until 2012?

The company did not formally report the injury until 2012. Edgar mentioned that the delay was due to the company's reluctance to issue the official accident report (CAT) and its failure to properly acknowledge the accident. The union eventually issued the report after the company’s negligence.

What is the significance of the CAT (Comunicado de Acidente de Trabalho) in this case?

The CAT is a crucial document for recognizing and formalizing a workplace injury for workers' compensation claims. In this case, the employer failed to issue the CAT report for several years, delaying the formal acknowledgment of Edgar's accident and affecting his ability to claim compensation.

How did the witnesses describe the conditions surrounding Edgar’s accident?

Witnesses confirmed that Edgar's injury occurred while moving pallets, which are used to lift goods off the ground. One of the witnesses described Edgar twisting his ankle while handling the pallets, which were essential for storing and transporting goods in the workplace.

Was Edgar's injury caused by poor working conditions or lack of safety equipment?

While Edgar's injury was related to the physical nature of his job, witnesses indicated that the company did not provide sufficient safety equipment. The only safety gear provided was basic ear protection, which was inadequate for the type of work being done. The lack of proper safety measures could have contributed to the accident.

What role did the union play in the case?

The union became involved after the company failed to issue the proper accident report. The union eventually issued the CAT certificate in 2012, after the company had dismissed Edgar, to help formalize the recognition of his work-related injury.

What was the purpose of the legal request for additional documentation in the case?

The legal request aimed to obtain additional documentation from the employer, specifically the worker's profile and professional records, to help establish a clearer connection between the injury and Edgar's current condition. This would assist the expert in completing the medical evaluation and determining the causal relationship between the accident and his disability.

What is the significance of the perito (expert) in this case?

The perito, or expert, plays a critical role in evaluating the medical aspects of the case. The expert is tasked with determining the causal link between Edgar's workplace injury and his current physical condition. The court requested that the expert's report be supplemented with additional information from the employer to clarify this connection.

What actions did the court take in response to the legal request for further evidence?

The court granted the request for additional documentation and issued an order for the employer to provide the necessary records within ten days. The expert was tasked with reviewing this new evidence to complete the medical evaluation, which would allow the case to move forward.