Ismael Bermudez
09/02/2021 14:30
Clarín.com
Economy
Updated 09/02/2021 3:12 PM
The Supreme Court unanimously, with the vote of Carlos Rosenkrantz, Juan Carlos Maqueda and Elena Highton de Nolasco,
rejected a worker's claim and confirmed the constitutionality of Article 1 of Law 27,348
.
It is the one that provides that
the medical commissions constitute the prior administrative instance,
of a mandatory and exclusive nature, for the affected worker to request the determination of the professional nature of his illness or contingency and his disability and the corresponding monetary benefits provided for in the Law of Risks of the Job.
Almost a month ago, in the case entitled "SEVA, Franco Gabriel c / Asociart ART SA s / accident-special law".
The High Court also ratified another key aspect
of the Labor Risks Law:
the use of the Baremo - a unique table for measuring disabilities
- which is included in the Labor Risks Law.
Now, in the case "Pogonza, Jonathan Jesús c / Galeno ART SA s / accident - special law", the judges of the Court maintain that
the medical commissions were created by formal laws
"to settle disputes between individuals. Law 24,241 of the System Integrated Retirement and Pensions created these administrative bodies, established their integration and financing (article 51). In turn, laws 24,557 (articles 21 and 22) and 27,348 (article 1) expressly establish the scope of their competence in matters of occupational hazards ”.
The Court also argues that
"the medical commissions satisfy the requirements of independence and impartiality for the purposes
of the specific and limited matter that the occupational risk regime confers on them. Such requirements are linked, on the one hand, to the composition of the administrative body. which exercises jurisdictional competence and, on the other hand, with the protection of the guarantee of due process ”.
The worker had filed a lawsuit directly with the National Labor Court.
The National Labor Court of First Instance No. 23 ordered the filing of the proceedings because the prior administrative instance before the medical commissions established in law 27,348 had not been complied with, a decision that was confirmed by Chamber IV of the National Chamber of the Job.
Against that decision, the worker filed an extraordinary appeal
before the Supreme Court. It stated that Law 27,348 was unconstitutional because "it unreasonably granted the medical commissions jurisdictional powers that are proper to the judges, because the impartiality of the aforementioned administrative bodies was not guaranteed since the system was financed by the ART and because judicial control that the law provides was neither comprehensive nor sufficient ".
In addition, he
argued that the law was unconstitutional because it obstructed the worker's right to sue
before his natural judge and placed him "at a lower level with respect to any injured party ..." in non-labor areas that "directly has justice within his reach." .
Finally, it
invoked the violation of the principle of progressiveness in matters of social rights.
The Court today rejected all these proposals - in a ruling of 23 pages -
and confirmed the constitutionality of the medical commissions.
“The decision is of the utmost importance because it is the first time that the Court has issued on this central aspect of the occupational hazard system.
The sentence will have an impact on thousands of files
in process where the same issue is discussed and, more generally, on the operation of the system ”, the Ato Tribunal maintains in a statement.
YN
Look also
The UIA to the Government: "We want an Argentina that promotes private investment"
ART: the Covid insurance quota that companies pay for their workers increases
