English 
Francês 
Alemão 
Italiano 
Japonês 
Norueguês 
Portuguese 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
0 comments 
In São Paulo, the 8th Panel of TRF 3 Recognized Vibration Above the Limit for Over 25 Years to Grant Special Retirement to a Bus Driver, Causing a Change in the Outcome of the Process and Drawing Attention from the INSS
The decision addresses a point that many people still underestimate in the daily transportation: vehicle vibration as a harmful agent to health.
The case arrived at the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region and went through discussions about legal limits that have changed over time, in addition to a judicial expertise that was decisive.
The information was disclosed by the press office of TRF 3, the official communication sector of the court.
-
Employee Fired After Accumulating 114 Days of Medical Leave in One Year, Labor Court Upholds Company’s Decision
-
Employee Fired While Treating Depression Wins in Court and Vale Is Required to Rehire Him Following Decision Based on the CLT and INSS Benefits
-
Workers Should Be Aware! March 6 Will Be The Fifth Business Day Of March And The Final Deadline For Companies To Pay Salaries According To The CLT
-
2026 FGTS Anniversary Withdrawal Is Released According to Birth Month, Sets Amounts by Balance Range, Establishes Deadlines for March and April, and Changes Rules in Case of Dismissal
What Happened and Why Vibration Became the Center of the Case
The 8th Panel of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region recognized that exposure to vibration levels above legal limits can characterize special activity.
Consequently, it determined that the National Institute of Social Security grant special retirement to an insured individual who worked as a bus driver under conditions considered harmful to health.
The rapporteur, federal judge Louise Filgueiras, emphasized that the categorization is possible when the exposure to vibration above the allowed limit is proven.
Why the Bus Driver Was Equated to a Tractor Driver in TRF 3’s Analysis
The aspect that drew the most attention was the equivalence between the activities of a tractor driver and a bus or truck driver.
According to the adopted understanding, this equivalence is accepted by jurisprudence and also by the INSS itself, and can also include bus conductors and truck helpers.
In practice, the vibration caused by the vehicle is treated as a significant harmful agent for this type of function, as long as it exceeds the limits set forth in social security legislation.
Maximum Vibration Limits Changed and This Affected the Recognized Period
The controversy revolved around changes in legislation regarding the maximum vibration limits.
In the initial analysis, the 2nd Federal Social Security Court of São Paulo recognized the specialty for part of the insured’s working period as a bus driver, between 1986 and 2013.
This initial cutoff opened the door for appeals and discussions about how far the special time could be extended.
Judicial Expertise Extended the Special Time to 2014 and Changed the Game
Both the INSS and the insured appealed to the Court.
The INSS contested the ruling, arguing lack of proof of specialty, but the appeal was denied.
The insured’s appeal was accepted to recognize the special time until 2014, based on a judicial expert report that confirmed vibrations above the limit in effect until that year, before a change in the regulation.
TRF 3, the federal court responsible for judging the 3rd Region, reinforced that the key is the proof of exposure above what is provided in the legislation.
Total Exceeded 25 Years and Granted Right to Special Retirement
With the recognition of the special time until 2014, the sum of the periods exceeded 25 years.
This is the time requirement that, in this case, allowed the granting of special retirement to the bus driver.
The result is surprising because it does not depend only on the position on paper but rather on the technical demonstration of harmful exposure and the legal framing accepted by the court.
The case draws attention because it puts vibration as a central factor and shows how expertise and interpretation of legal limits can completely change the outcome of a special retirement request.
The information comes from the press office of TRF 3, the official communication sector of the court. Civil Appeal 5004766-32.2021.4.03.6183
-
Uma pessoa reagiu a isso.