As controvérsias sobre a incidência do prazo previsto no artigo 103, caput, da Lei n. 8.213/91 no reconhecimento do direito adquirido ao benefício previdenciário mais vantajoso

• Autor(a) principal: Pessoa, Mariane Medeiros
• Data de Publicação: 2017
• Tipo de documento: Trabalho de conclusão de curso
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Universitário da Ânima (RUNA)
• Texto Completo: https://repositorio.animaeducacao.com.br/handle/ANIMA/5539
• topic: Decadência (direito); Previdência social; Benefícios previdenciários; Direito Previdenciário

This work was devoted to studying the issue that involves the institute of decadence in social security, provided for in article 103, caput, of Law no. 8.213/91, in relation to the controversy that arises in the application of this period for the recognition of the acquired right to the best benefit. It has as general objective to analyze the differences regarding the incidence of the decadential term in the recognition of the acquired right to the most advantageous social security benefit. We sought to understand the positions that involve the application of this institute in the social security system, as well as its legal relevance, through doctrinal and jurisprudential understandings. To achieve this goal, bibliographical research was used, which consisted in the study of works by several professors in the area of social security law. The method of approach used was the deductive one, by means of which general propositions about Social Security were adopted, culminating in a specific proposition, the discussion about the incidence of the decadential term in the recognition of the acquired right to the most advantageous social security benefit. As for the depth level, the exploratory research was adopted, and the approach is qualitative research. Also, jurisprudential understandings were researched in relation to the topic. In this way, three aspects were found regarding the incidence of the decadential term in the recognition of the right to the best benefit: the first is the one that recognizes the incidence of the term; the second is in the sense that it is not a review proper, but rather the exercise of the acquired right by granting a new benefit, for which there is no decay; the third is that there was no discussion in the administrative route on the issue, preventing the course of the decadential period. Within the scope of the doctrine only one understanding was found, in the sense that it is not possible to apply the term, since the matter was not subject to administrative appraisal. In the case law, the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region and the National Classification of Federal Special Courts, follow the understanding that decadence applies in these cases, in the same vein adopted by the Federal Supreme Court. In the Superior Court of Justice, there were different positions regarding the matter, reason why this court ordered the suspension in the whole country of the processes that deal with the matter until the judgment of two special appeals, under the rite of repetitive appeals.