Relativization of res judicata and the divergence of jurisprudential understanding in cases involving exposure to harmful agentes to health and physical integrity of the insured in the RGPS.

Abstract

ABSTRACT: The insured files a lawsuit claiming to have been exposed to a certain harmful agent and, consequently, requests the granting of a special retirement benefit. The claim is dismissed. Later, the insured brings a new lawsuit, alleging exposure to a different agent than the one that was the subject of denial in the previous case. The first question arises: can this new agent be considered a new cause of action and, therefore, not be encompassed by the preclusive effect of res judicata? Furthermore, what if this agent was not considered harmful by the prevailing jurisprudence at the time the first lawsuit was filed, but there has been a revision of understanding by the Court? Would a new cause of action be established in the second lawsuit? The purpose of this article is to answer these questions, analyzing, in the end, a specific case submitted to the Honorable Regional Federal Court of the 4th Region, through the hypothetical-deductive method, based on doctrinal and jurisprudential research. It is concluded that the new agent cannot be considered a new cause of action, especially if the case involves a change in the Court's understanding, as the fact that the agent is not expressly mentioned in the documentation submitted in the first lawsuit would not lead to a different understanding by the judge. Finally, even if a reevaluation is allowed, it should be conducted by the adjudicating body of the first lawsuit in order to preserve the integrity of the Judiciary.