A supremacia do laudo médico pericial: uma análise da correlação entre o laudo pericial e a sentença em ações previdenciárias.

Abstract

This study analyzes the correlation between the medical expert report and the judicial sentence in social security actions, focusing on disability benefits (temporary disability allowance and permanent disability retirement) and the Continuous Provision Benefit (BPC). Based on the constitutional principles of social security (art. 194, CF/1988), such as universality, selectivity, and distributivity, it examines the disproportionate role of the medical expert as a 'de facto judge,' which often marginalizes other evidence, such as private medical reports and testimonies, compromising the adversarial principle and motivated free conviction (art. 371, NCPC). Using a deductive approach and bibliographic method, with analysis of doctrine, jurisprudence, and a concrete case of an unfounded sentence in the Federal Special Court of Paraíba, it identifies flaws in the reports, such as insufficient reasoning and omission of biopsychosocial aspects, resulting in undue exclusions, judicial overload, and violation of human dignity. Reforms are proposed, such as interdisciplinary expert assessments and expansion of the adversarial process, to balance technical rigor and the guarantee of social rights, promoting inclusion and equity