Portuguese 
The nursing technician who worked for seventeen years in various departments of a Porto Alegre hospital and retired due to an accident-related disability lost her compensation claims in the appeals court because the majority of judges determined her back condition did not result from her work.
The decision comes from the 11th Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 4th Region in Rio Grande do Sul and was made by a majority vote.
The judges overturned the ruling from the 30th Labor Court of Porto Alegre, which had previously granted compensation for moral and material damages in the first instance.
The rapporteur of the decision was Judge Rosiul de Freitas Azambuja.
-
Chilean Penguins Receive Custom-Made Copper Vests to Heal Wounds, Speed Up Recovery, and Enable Swimming During Treatment
-
Family Farmers Set New Record at Expointer: R$ 14.4 Million in Sales Amidst R$ 6.18 Billion Event Revenue Despite 10% Attendance Drop
-
750-Ton Railway Bridge Crosses City on 40 Axle Lines in Two-Hour Operation to Minimize Train Disruptions
-
American Professor Raises $5,000 for Seedlings in China’s Sandy Region; Returns 27 Years Later to Find Over 50,000 Trees
She Had Already Secured Retirement Benefits from Another Court
The troubling detail in this case is this: the worker arrived at the Labor Court already retired due to an accident-related disability.
She obtained this benefit through a lawsuit in State Court after several absences for orthopedic issues in her back and upper limbs throughout her 17 years at the hospital.
These are two distinct judicial paths, each with its own rules of evidence.
In other words, one branch of the judiciary recognized the accident-related disability, while another has now dismissed the connection to her work.
The Labor Court Expert Mentioned an Aggravating Factor
In the labor lawsuit, the expert indicated that the professional activities could have acted as an aggravating factor for the diagnosed degenerative diseases.
This is the concept of concausal nexus, which does not require that the work be the sole cause of the disease. It suffices that it contributed to worsening an already existing condition.
It was based on this reasoning that the first instance court ruled against the hospital.
The concept is significant because degenerative spinal disease is common in the general population. Therefore, the labor discussions rarely focus on the existence of the disease, but rather on the impact of work on its aggravation.
The Hospital’s Defense Took a Different Approach
The institution argued that external and degenerative factors caused the ailments.
Additionally, the defense claimed that the employee had always worked with restrictions and therefore was not subjected to physically demanding tasks.
The hospital further argued that her own retirement was granted based on a judicial report certifying the degenerative nature of her spinal issue.
In other words, the defense used the decision from the other court as evidence in its favor.
The Argument that Changed the Ruling
The decision combined three elements to dismiss the nexus, according to Consultor Jurídico.
The rapporteur emphasized that imaging tests indicated various changes in the plaintiff’s spine. He also took into account the expert report produced in Common Court and the worker’s obesity, which was compounded by diabetes.
The third element is the most debatable of all.
The judge understood that the work of a nursing technician is varied and, in its totality, does not involve significant physical exertion. Thus, he concluded that there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge the concausal nexus.
The worker also presented a condition of obesity and diabetes, which were considered external factors in the workplace assessment.
“The lawsuit in Common Court makes no mention of the plaintiff’s work”
The rapporteur’s statement explains the logic of the decision better than any summary could.
“In the Common Justice system, the expert report concludes that the cervical spine shows degenerative issues. The lawsuit in the Common Justice system does not mention the plaintiff’s work as a cause of the spinal problem at any point,” said the judge.
In other words, the action that secured her retirement ended up being used against her compensation claim.
Why this thesis has weight beyond this case
The understanding that the position “as a whole does not involve physical effort” is the point that should continue to be discussed.
Anyone who has been part of a nursing team on duty knows that the routine includes transferring patients from stretchers to beds, pushing equipment, assisting those who cannot move independently, and standing for entire shifts.
On the other hand, the court did not state that the profession is easy. It claimed that it is varied, and in this particular case, with this worker and those restrictions, the body of evidence did not sustain the nexus.
The difference between the two aspects is significant and determines the outcome of similar cases.
In practice, each case once again depends on the expert report and the set of presented examinations. There is no automatic presumption in favor of the category, no matter how exhausting the routine may seem from the outside.
The case has ascended to the TST
The worker appealed to the Superior Labor Court, which is why the decision of the 11th Panel is not yet final.
Since the reform of the ruling was made by majority and not unanimously, there is a recorded divergence in the collegiate body itself, which usually helps appellants.
The appeal now needs to demonstrate a violation of law or a divergence between courts, as the TST does not reevaluate evidence. This filter is precisely what makes it difficult to reverse a decision on the nexus in a higher instance.
What has not been disclosed
No amounts in Brazilian reais were mentioned in the publications. It is unclear how much the lower court had assessed for moral or material damages.
The worker’s name, age, and the hospital involved were also not revealed, nor was the exact date of the trial session.
It is also unknown how long the worker was away before retirement or how many absences occurred over the 17 years of her contract.
These details typically weigh on the evaluation of the nexus, so their absence limits any external reading of the case.
Labor Courts have been issuing decisions of this kind frequently, even in cases where the physical routine is indisputable, such as in the case of the bank teller who lost the ten-minute break every ninety minutes.
The summary of the ruling is available in the official TRT-4 newsletter, and a detailed explanation of the rationale was published in Consultor Jurídico.
What do you think: does nursing involve enough physical effort to cause spinal issues at work?
