After adding Covid-19 to the list of occupational diseases, the Ministry of Health falls back | Competitions and Employment

• What are the rights of the worker who hires Covid-19? See questions

In Tuesday’s ordinance, Covid-19, a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, appeared classified as belonging to the group Work-related diseases with their respective Agents and / or Risk Factors, due to possible exposure to the virus in activities. of work.

Without this classification, the understanding of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), which, in April, had already defined the cases of contamination of workers by coronavirus (Covid-19), could be classified as an occupational disease. However, this recognition is not automatic. The employee must go through the INSS forensic analysis and demonstrate that he acquired the disease at work.

If the ordinance was in force, when requesting withdrawal from the INSS, the doctor could consider that it was an occupational disease, without the need for proof. And then it would be up to the company to prove otherwise.

Occupational disease is one acquired or triggered by the performance of daily activities at work. Among the most common, for example, are repetitive stress injuries (RSI), low back pain, hernias, hearing and vision, and even psychological illnesses, such as depression and anxiety.

For Ricardo Calcini, specialist in Labor and Union Relations, the revocation of the ordinance shows that the issue is not yet defined and, therefore, ends up bringing greater insecurity to workers and employers.

“In practice, by not including Covid-19 in the List of Work-Related Diseases (LDRT), it will be difficult for the INSS to voluntarily grant social security benefits for assistance due to accidental illness, unless there is a decision administrative or judicial to the contrary. ”, Opina.

Therefore, in the current scenario, Covid-19 should not be understood, as a general rule, as an occupational disease, unless it is shown that the coronavirus was contracted by the exercise of work activity, “he summarizes.

The lawyer advises that the revocation of the ministerial decree should not be understood as synonymous with the absence of corporate responsibility, especially in cases where, indeed, the causal link is proven due to contamination of the employee in his work environment due to corporate fault.

“This nexus continues to be presumed in activities that involve, for example, health professionals, due to direct and more accentuated exposure to the virus compared to other professions,” he observes.

Labor lawyer Eduardo Pragmácio Filho warns that, for a disease to be considered occupational, it must be acquired or triggered by the special conditions in which the work is performed and is directly related to it, that is, there is a causal difference link between illness and work.

As Covid-19 is an endemic disease, in principle, it would not be considered an occupational disease, unless, according to the INSS, the medical expert understands that there is a causal link. Thus, the mere fact that an employee is diagnosed with Covid-19 does not automatically imply the recognition of an illness at work. Even if the INSS awards the benefit by accident, the company can still appeal against the decision, adding medical challenge and relevant documentation.

“The STF’s decision does not change the understanding that it is necessary for an INSS expert doctor to characterize the causal link to declare Covid-19 as an occupational disease,” he explains.

When an employee is fired due to occupational disease, he receives an accidental illness benefit and the company is obliged to pay the FGTS for the period of dismissal, in addition to having to provide stability for the 12 months after discharge from the INSS., explains Eduardo Pragmácio Filho.

See the latest economic news