A lawyer consisting of a person injured in an accident at work must be admitted to the medical board.
The Portuguese case law has held that 'The secret nature of medical examinations carried out in judicial proceedings arising from accidents at work does not prevent the examiner from being accompanied by a lawyer if he so requests'. It added that "The lawyer has the right to accompany the sponsored person and may be accompanied by the lawyer before all public or private authorities".
This question is interesting because there are those who understand that the lawyer constituted by the victim should not be admitted to be present in the Medical Board examination, because of paragraph 1 of art. 139 of the CPT states that the medical board examination is secret.
The decisions of the Court of Appeal of Lisbon have understood that the secret nature attributed by law to medical examinations, namely those carried out by Medical Boards when we are in the presence of injured persons in service, is that the examination is not public, just as judicial acts. That is, the law cautions privacy, the privacy of the victim.
The presence of the lawyer, in these examinations, as long as required by the accident, makes perfect sense, because the secret nature of this diligence is established in favor of the worker by the victim.
Along with this reasoning, it is necessary to attend to art. 54 and 78 of the Statute of the Bar Association, which provides: 'The lawyer shall have the right to accompany the lawyer and to be accompanied by counsel before all public or private authorities'.
In view of the foregoing, in the event that the presence of a lawyer in a medical examination - Medical Board, of a victim in service is not admitted, there is a violation of paragraph 2 of art. 20 of the CRP and art. 54 or 78 of the Statute of the Bar Association. This is an irregularity.
What will be the effect of this irregularity in the process?
Now, the presence of a lawyer in the examination carried out by the Medical Board is only a face-to-face act, because the agent has neither and can intervene in that act. Therefore, the presence of the agent does not influence the decision of the case.
By not influencing the decision of the case, this irregularity can not have the effect of nullity, in the terms foreseen in no. 1 of art. 201 of the CPC.
Source : juscertus
0 ความคิดเห็น:
Post a Comment