Last Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling that declared the constitutionality of the Medical Commissions As an administrative court prior to the judicial instance of people who suffer labor damages, it reopened the “Crossfire” between lawyers laborists, on the one hand, and business advisers and ART, on the other.
For Cynthia benzion of the Labor Lawyers Association “The ruling prevents workers from fully and directly accessing Justice as can the rest of the affected people. Means a violation of the right to jurisdiction and the principle of equality recognized in the National Constitution and International Treaties on Human Rights with Constitutional Hierarchy. And it does nothing but endorse the operation of a system that privatizes occupational health and disregards the health and life care of working people ”.
Instead, Mara Bettiol, President of the Union of Labor Risk Insurers said that “we celebrate the Court’s ruling, because it finishes validating all the key aspects of the Reform of the Work Hazards Law. It supports the previous step by Medical Commissions, the use of the Scale as an instrument to weigh damages derived from an accident or occupational disease, and it makes clear how to calculate compensation ”.
Bettiol added that claims “that exaggerate and magnify the damages remnants of an occupational accident have generated a huge overcharge for the productive economy and also many inequities among workers and lack of foresight for all of us who make up the productive fabric. ”
“For its resolution, the law established: to replace the payment of fees according to the amount of the sentence, by a fixed amount per medical act in relation to the work actually carried out, that the experts are chosen by means of a competition from which the causes to be dealt with are then assigned by lot. And the remaining damages of a work accident are determined according to what is established in the Scale ”. explained.
Along the same lines, for the business advisor, Marcelo Aquino, “By establishing that medical commissions are constitutional, they give the injured worker a speed in the process that allows you to guarantee as soon as possible the collection of what would be the economic compensation due to the accident or occupational disease. And if well Justice recognizes compensation that could possibly be higher, the average of a trial is in 6 years so the economic compensation would clearly be affected “.
Meanwhile, the labor lawyer Luis Ramirez says that “the Labor Risks Law has had a uneasy relationship with the Constitution National since its sanction in 1995, to the point that it has the record of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality by the Court itself Supreme, when it had another composition. In order to overcome them and be able to defend the ART system, the governments of the day have passed various laws, such as 26,773 of 2012 and 27,348 of 2017. Which proves that in certain issues there is no ‘crack’ ”.
For his part, the labor lawyer León Piasek states that “it will be necessary to denounce the failure in the international instances because it does not allow the worker to have direct access to the National Labor Court, which is unconstitutional ”. And he concludes: “What makes the ART celebrate this ruling is because it reduces the risk of immediately paying in full the repair of the damages. Also because favors employers since, by putting ART as intermediaries, define their responsibilities over non-compliance with the preventive measures of risk and work safety ”.