Artigo Original
Core Technical and Behavioral Guidelines for Safe and Effective On-Site Inspections in Occupational Settings
Como citar: Macedo PS, Filho ASPS. Diretrizes técnicas e comportamentais fundamentais para a realização segura e eficaz de vistorias em ambientes laborais. Persp Med Legal Pericia Med. Vol. 10, 2025; 250948.
https://dx.doi.org/10.47005/250948
Recebido em 22/06/2025
Aceito em 03/10/2025
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Core Technical and Behavioral Guidelines for Safe and Effective On-Site Inspections in Occupational Settings
Resumo
INTRODUÇÃO: A vistoria in loco é essencial nas perícias trabalhistas, especialmente para analisar o nexo técnico entre patologias e ambiente laboral. MATERIAL E MÉTODO: Estudo qualitativo e descritivo, com análise documental, revisão bibliográfica e sistematização de experiências práticas. RESULTADOS: Foram sistematizadas diretrizes abrangendo planejamento, segurança, conduta das partes, organização e registro técnico. DISCUSSÃO: A ausência de protocolos claros gera insegurança jurídica e operacional, especialmente entre peritos iniciantes. CONCLUSÃO: As diretrizes propostas fortalecem a atuação do perito judicial, promovendo maior validade jurídica e segurança técnica das vistorias.
Palavras Chave: Medicina forense, prova pericial; doença ocupacional; segurança do trabalho; diretrizes
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: On-site inspections are crucial in occupational expert evaluations to analyze causal links between pathologies and work conditions. METHODS: A qualitative and descriptive study based on documentary analysis, literature review, and practical experience. RESULTS: Guidelines were structured to address planning, safety, participant behavior, organization, and technical reporting. DISCUSSION: The lack of standardized protocols generates legal and operational uncertainties, especially for novice experts. CONCLUSION: The proposed guidelines reinforce the expert’s role, ensuring safer and more technically valid inspections.
Keywords (MeSH): Forensic Medicine; Expert Testimony; occupational disease; guidelines as topic,
1. INTRODUCTION
Workplace inspections represent an important stage in the context of labor lawsuits, especially when the goal is to understand the work environment and its potential relationship with occupational diseases or workplace accidents. According to Article 464 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), there are three types of expert evidence—examination, inspection, and evaluation—with on-site inspections being among the most frequently used in cases involving exposure to environmental risks. However, as established by the Guidelines of the Brazilian Association of Legal and Occupational Medicine (ABMLPM) (1,2) and the Cooperation Agreement between ABMLPM and ABERGO (3), the technical inspection is not part of the medical expert examination per se. It constitutes a separate technical act that may be performed by a medical or non-medical professional, provided they are duly qualified in the analysis of environmental risks (physical, chemical, biological, or ergonomic). In cases involving the evaluation of hazardous or unhealthy conditions, it is mandatory to hold a Specialist Qualification Registration (RQE) in Occupational Medicine, as required by the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT). (4)
Unlike examinations conducted solely in medical offices, workplace inspections involve additional variables that demand technical planning, attention to safety, environmental risk management, and effective coordination by the court-appointed expert. Inspections are often conducted in active workplaces, with machinery, physical hazards, and high personnel flow, requiring the expert to maintain heightened vigilance regarding safety, order, and the technical objectives of the evaluation.
Moreover, the simultaneous presence of workers, attorneys, party representatives, and potentially engineers and occupational safety professionals makes the setting more complex from both logistical and behavioral standpoints. (5) The coexistence of professionals with different backgrounds and perspectives requires the expert to demonstrate mediation skills, organization, and technical focus.
Participants typically include:
- Judicial Expert: Appointed by the court and responsible for conducting the inspection.
- Claimant (Plaintiff): The worker alleging occupational harm, with or without legal representation.
- Defendant (Employer): Represented by company officials and, typically, legal counsel.
- Technical Assistants: Appointed by the parties; may be physicians, engineers, or other professionals who accompany the inspection, raise technical questions, and issue independent reports.
- Occupational Safety Representatives: Safety engineers or technicians responsible for presenting environmental reports, risk maps, and work processes.
- Other Professionals: In specific cases, the judge may authorize or order the presence of physical therapists, ergonomists, psychologists, labor inspectors, or INSS (Social Security) experts.
The number of participants can exceed ten, making the environment susceptible to conflict or distraction. Furthermore, the expert is the technical leader of the inspection. Their responsibility goes beyond medical analysis—they are, in practice, the “eyes of the court” in the environment under investigation. It is their duty to ensure that the inspection is conducted objectively, safely, and technically, without emotional or behavioral interference that might hinder its course. This underscores the need for organization, protocol, and strict oversight. (6)
Despite the importance of such inspections, standardized protocols guiding experts on best practices remain scarce. Many novice professionals face difficulties knowing what to observe, how to handle inappropriate behavior from parties, which PPE to use, and how to record findings in a clear and legally valid manner. (7)
In this context, the present article aims to propose fundamental technical and behavioral guidelines for the safe and effective execution of workplace inspections. The proposal offers practical recommendations based on current legislation, field experience, and specialized literature, promoting the safety of all involved, legal validity of the expert act, and the effectiveness in seeking material truth.
2. METHODOLOGY
This study adopts a qualitative and descriptive approach, based on document analysis, a review of legal and technical literature, and practical experience reports from judicial medical expert evaluations with on-site inspections. The proposed guidelines are based on a review of key regulations governing medical expert practice in Brazil, especially those issued by the Federal Medical Council (CFM), the Labor Judiciary, and current labor legislation. (7,8)
A specialized literature review was also conducted: technical and scientific works discussing inspection procedures and expert conduct were surveyed. The experience accumulated by the author in over 10,000 judicial medical evaluations, including technical inspections in diverse settings—such as factories, hospitals, construction sites, and call centers—was also systematized. Field notes were used to identify patterns, recurring risks, operational failures, and effective solutions adopted in practice.
This method does not seek to exhaust the complexity of expert practice but to organize practical guidance for judicial experts, especially those starting out or working in high-complexity labor environments. The guidelines are organized thematically, covering all steps—from inspection planning to final technical reporting.
3. GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSPECTION
The following basic guidelines should be observed by all participants:
3.1. Clothing and Safety
All participants must wear closed, secure, and comfortable footwear. Flip-flops, open-toed sandals, or high heels are strictly prohibited, as inspections may involve irregular surfaces, risk of falling objects, or operating machinery.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): The expert should request the company to provide PPE appropriate for the environment, such as helmets, earplugs, or respirators, as needed.
3.2. Group Movement (Convoy)
Throughout the inspection, ALL participants must stay together, following the judicial expert, who acts as the technical coordinator. No one is allowed to separate from the group. Group movement facilitates control, avoids dispersion, and ensures that all observations occur under the expert’s supervision, minimizing misinterpretations and conflicts. (4) This also enhances safety in areas with vehicles or machinery, as per occupational safety regulations. (9,10)
3.3. Respect for Marked Routes
The group must adhere strictly to marked and authorized routes. Access to hazardous areas must occur only with safety professionals and proper PPE. The expert must refuse entry into uncontrolled or imminently dangerous areas, as per NR-1 (9), and may suspend the inspection if safety cannot be ensured.
3.4. Prohibition of Conflicting Interactions
Any form of provocation, accusation, legal debate, or verbal confrontation between parties is strictly PROHIBITED. The expert must uphold objectivity and impartiality, warning participants in the event of misconduct. Persistent behavior should be recorded and may justify interruption of the inspection. (4) All questions must be directed to the expert, who will evaluate their relevance.
3.5. Task Demonstration
The claimant must not be coerced into reenacting work tasks. A paradigm (i.e., comparable worker) should be designated by the company, knowledgeable and capable of performing tasks safely. (8)
3.6. Prohibited Handling of Equipment
Only the paradigm may handle machinery or active equipment. No other participant may operate industrial devices such as saws, presses, or boilers. These must be handled exclusively by trained personnel, under safety supervision. This ensures safety and respects the precautionary principle established in NR-12. (10)
3.7. Avoiding Personal Distractions
The claimant should not interrupt the inspection to greet colleagues or chat. Participants should remain focused, avoiding calls, social media, or unrelated conversations. The expert should brief participants on this conduct and redirect attention if necessary. (5)
3.8. Efficiency without Technical Loss
The inspection should be completed as quickly as possible, provided it does not compromise technical accuracy. Time spent in each area should be balanced with the complexity of the required information, respecting principles of reasonableness and procedural economy. (8) The presence of unrelated individuals should be minimized to avoid distraction and risk.
3.9. Space for Technical Contributions
A moment should be provided for parties and their representatives to present technical observations. While the expert leads the inspection, technical assistants may suggest relevant points or respectfully note objections. The expert will evaluate these based on professional judgment and experience. (6)
3.10. Professional Conduct
Judicial inspections are solemn, technical, and impartial acts. Participants must demonstrate respect, neutrality, and focus. The expert must maintain an ethical, objective, cordial, and firm posture, avoiding emotional responses. Communication should be clear, technical, and aligned with CFM guidelines. (8)
CFM Resolution nº 2.183/2018 states that the expert must preserve autonomy and resist external interference. Attempts at manipulation, intimidation, or disrespect must be recorded and, if necessary, reported to the court. Unauthorized recordings or hostile behavior are prohibited. (4)
3.11. Prior Communication with the Company
The expert must communicate with the company in advance, preferably via official email, to ensure access, confirm the presence of safety staff, and authorize the entry of third parties (assistants, attorneys, claimant). This communication must include the date, time, location, participant list, and any PPE or documents required (floor plans, environmental reports, CATs, etc.). (5)
Failure to prepare may delay or hinder the inspection. Companies should inform employees beforehand to ensure awareness and cooperation. The CPC (11) supports proper notice, ensuring due process and adversarial proceedings even during the expert evidence phase.
4.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Technical inspections in the workplace represent a critical moment in building expert evidence in labor lawsuits involving allegations of occupational disease or workplace accidents. It is a solemn, technical, and complex act, requiring not only medical knowledge but also leadership, organizational skills, environmental analysis, and ethical conduct.
Furthermore, the ABMLPM Guidelines (1,2) and the ABMLPM–ABERGO Agreement (3) emphasize that ergonomic or environmental risk inspections are separate technical acts, which may be conducted by non-medical professionals, provided they are qualified and that the scope is clearly defined by the expert. This functional separation improves clarity, prevents procedural errors, and ensures professionals operate within their area of competence.
The guidelines proposed in this article aim to fill a gap in the legal-medical literature by systematizing practical recommendations that ensure effectiveness, safety, and legal validity of on-site inspections. Predefined conduct, safety compliance, coordinated participation, and standardized documentation enhance the quality of expert reports and reduce risks of procedural nullities or objections.
By establishing these guidelines, we aim to strengthen the role of the judicial expert as a technical agent of the court, capable of producing robust, impartial, and evidence-based conclusions. This material is intended to serve as a reference especially for early-career professionals or institutions seeking to develop internal protocols for best practices.
Finally, it is recommended that these guidelines be periodically reviewed and updated in light of legal, jurisprudential, and technical developments in occupational health and forensic medicine.
References
1. Oliveira AB, et al. Manual de perícia médica judicial. São Paulo: Editora dos Tribunais; 2020.
2. Leite CG. Vistoria técnica em perícias trabalhistas: aspectos práticos e éticos. Rev Bras Med Trab. 2022;20(2):159–66.
3. Martins JS, Martins DF. Manual do perito judicial: teoria e prática da atuação pericial. 2ª ed. São Paulo: JH Mizuno; 2018.
4. Brasil. Consolidação das Leis do Trabalho. Decreto-Lei nº 5.452, de 1º de maio de 1943 [Internet]. Brasília: Planalto; 1943 [citado 2025 jun 18]. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto-lei/del5452.htm
5. Conselho Federal de Medicina. Resolução CFM nº 2.183, de 21 de setembro de 2018. Dispõe sobre as normas éticas para a realização de atos periciais [Internet]. Brasília: CFM; 2018 [citado 2025 jun 18]. Disponível em: https://portal.cfm.org.br
6. Brasil. Norma Regulamentadora nº 1 (NR-1) – Disposições Gerais e Gerenciamento de Riscos Ocupacionais. Portaria SEPRT nº 6.730, de 9 de março de 2020.
7. Brasil. Norma Regulamentadora nº 12 (NR-12) – Segurança no Trabalho em Máquinas e Equipamentos. Portaria MTP nº 2.126; 2022.
8. Brasil. Código de Processo Civil. Lei nº 13.105, de 16 de março de 2015 [Internet]. Brasília: Planalto; 2015 [citado 2025 jun 18]. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105.htm
