{"id":5361,"date":"2018-11-18T10:55:31","date_gmt":"2018-11-18T12:55:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/senisepaiva.com.br\/conflicting-testimony-in-a-labor-lawsuit-rules-out-payment-of-additional-compensation\/"},"modified":"2026-09-23T20:56:58","modified_gmt":"2026-09-23T23:56:58","slug":"conflicting-testimony-in-a-labor-lawsuit-rules-out-payment-of-additional-compensation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/senisepaiva.com.br\/en\/conflicting-testimony-in-a-labor-lawsuit-rules-out-payment-of-additional-compensation\/","title":{"rendered":"Conflicting testimony in a labor lawsuit rules out payment of additional compensation."},"content":{"rendered":"

Labor courts<\/p>\n

Source: Migalhas publication<\/a>: Monday, November 12, 2018<\/p>\n

The Regional Labor Court of the 15th Region (TRT-15) analyzed the witnesses\u2019 testimony and the expert reports.<\/p>\n

A worker seeking additional payments from the company where he worked had his claims dismissed due to conflicting testimony given by the witnesses and the results of the expert reports. The decision was handed down by the 5th Chamber \u2013 3rd Panel of TRT-15.<\/p>\n

The worker filed a lawsuit against the company claiming, among other things, an unhealthy working conditions allowance, alleging that he worked in a damp and waterlogged place, and compensation for moral and material damages arising from an alleged occupational disease. At first instance, these claims were denied.<\/p>\n

In reviewing the plaintiff\u2019s appeal, the reporting judge, Gisela Rodrigues Magalh\u00e3es de Araujo e Moraes, found that, as regards the unhealthy conditions allowance, the expert report concluded that the activity was not performed under unhealthy conditions. The judge also took into account the testimony of the plaintiff and the company and concluded that the witnesses had given conflicting testimony:<\/p>\n

“Since the witnesses gave conflicting testimony regarding excessive humidity at the plaintiff\u2019s workplace, the decision must be against the party bearing the burden of proof, in this case the plaintiff. All the more so because the defendant\u2019s witness corroborated the information provided in the expert examination.”<\/em><\/p>\n

As regards the occupational disease, the judge stated that, although the worker argued that the oral evidence confirmed that he carried heavy parts during his work, this fact is not capable of overturning the expert\u2019s conclusion that the diseases he suffered during the employment contract bear no causal link to the work performed.<\/p>\n

Aceti Senise Paiva Advogados acted in the case.<\/p>\n