https://repositorio.uema.br/jspui/handle/123456789/3153 2026-04-13T00:33:58Z https://repositorio.uema.br/jspui/handle/123456789/6005 Título: Saúde Suplementar no Brasil e a negativa de tratamentos pelas operadoras de plano de saúde: inércia do judiciário ou conduta ilícita não observada? Abstact: Although the 1988 Federal Constitution enshrines the right to health as a fundamental social guarantee, governmental efforts, embodied in the Unified Health System, to fulfill this constitutional mandate have proven ineffective. Consequently, the Supplementary Health sector has acquired significant prominence in the national landscape. However, while it may serve as an alternative to the shortcomings of public healthcare, individuals, acting as beneficiaries of Health Plan Operators, often find themselves unassisted at critical moments concerning their own health or that of their dependents. This typically occurs when access to treatments, procedures, or medications is denied, compelling the beneficiary to seek judicial intervention in order to obtain services that are already contractually guaranteed. In light of this issue, the primary objective of this study is to investigate, from a research perspective, the reasons behind the high volume of legal actions in the healthcare sector involving the denial of service provision, in accordance with current legislation and jurisprudence. This will be demonstrated through an analysis of legal provisions governing contracts and specific health regulations, with the aim of identifying normative gaps that enable the antagonistic stance of health plan operators. The unlawfulness of such conduct will be established, the main areas where this phenomenon occurs will be identified, and the study will conclude by presenting the countermeasures adopted by health regulatory agencies and judicial bodies to combat this issue 2025-07-10T00:00:00Z https://repositorio.uema.br/jspui/handle/123456789/5887 Título: Os desafios institucionais no sistema previdenciário brasileiro: a hiperjudicialização do auxílio por incapacidade temporária rural no maranhão, entre 2022 e 2024, e os impactos dos entraves administrativos na proteção jurídica do segurado especial Abstact: This study investigates the phenomenon of hyperjudicialization of temporary rural disability benefits in the State of Maranhão between the years 2022 and 2024. Based on a literature review, legislative survey, and analysis of data extracted from official INSS bulletins (BEMBI and BEPS) and the National Council of Justice (CNJ), the research maps the growth of judicial demand in contrast to the inefficiency of the administrative pathway. The study is guided by the following questions: What are the main administrative obstacles faced by rural special insured individuals in obtaining the benefit from the INSS? And how have these obstacles contributed to the significant increase in judicial claims for rural disability benefits in Maranhão? The central hypothesis is that structural failures in the administrative process—such as delays in conducting medical examinations, rigid evidentiary requirements for proving rural activity, and the lack of proper guidance for insured individuals—constitute barriers to accessing rights. These issues drive rural workers to seek the Judiciary as the only means of securing social protection. Accordingly, the data show that the Judiciary, by granting a large proportion of claims initially denied by the agency, has taken on a corrective role in addressing the injustices caused by a system marked by disproportionate demands and the neglect of rural socioeconomic realities. In conclusion, the study finds that the increasing litigiousness observed does not stem from abusive behavior by the insured, but rather from the State’s failure to ensure the effectiveness of social rights 2026-06-10T00:00:00Z https://repositorio.uema.br/jspui/handle/123456789/5886 Título: Órfãos pelo Estado: do isolamento compulsório à proteção dos direitos fundamentais na Constituição Federal de 1988 Abstact: This study analyzes the legal and social implications of the sanitary segregation policy imposed on people with leprosy in Brazil between the 1930s and 1980s, with an emphasis on the compulsory separation of their children and the consequent rupture of family ties legitimized by state directives. Although the investigation addresses issues on a national scale, the state of Maranhão was adopted as the regional focus to deepen the understanding of these policies through local experiences. The central objective is to understand how such state practices violated fundamental constitutional principles, such as human dignity, the right to family life, and the integral protection of children, while also reflecting on the limits of state accountability for historical violations. The research was conducted through a qualitative approach based on bibliographic and documentary analysis, including scientific articles, legislation, institutional studies, and official records, as well as the examination of Civil Inquiry N. 1.19.000.000620/2024-05, initiated by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate a possible irregular adoption during the isolation regime. The findings indicate that the State, by institutionalizing the exclusion of individuals affected by leprosy and neglecting the rights of their children, perpetrated structural violations whose effects still resonate today. It is concluded that, although recent advances such as the enactment of Law n. 14.736/2023 represent some progress, the reparatory measures adopted remain insufficient in view of the complexity and depth of the harm caused, demanding greater commitment to memory, justice, and the effective protection of fundamental rights 2025-07-15T00:00:00Z https://repositorio.uema.br/jspui/handle/123456789/5725 Título: Credibilidade institucional e justiça epistêmica: tensões entre fé pública e a presunção de inocência no testemunho policial Abstact: The work is structured on the need to understand the tensions between the presumption of innocence and public faith in the Brazilian criminal process, especially when this is attributed to police testimony, and to evaluate the consequences of these imbalances for the rationality of evidence and for constitutional guaranties. The problem to be addressed is: to what extent has the presumption of veracity conferred upon the state’s word operated as an authority shortcut, practically emptying the epistemic and guarantor function of the presumption of innocence and producing epistemic injustice in the distribution of credibility between the prosecution and the defense? The adopted methodology follows a qualitative approach, combining bibliographic and documentary research around the theory of presumptions, the epistemology of evidence, and the concept of epistemic injustice, as well as the analysis of paradigm decisions from higher courts regarding the sufficiency of police testimony, the need for corroboration, and special scrutiny of official evidence. The research finds that the idea of public faith, when handled as an almost absolute presumption of truth, reinforces excessive credibility in favor of the police narrative, generates structural deficits concerning defendants and witnesses, and contributes to selectivity in the criminal justice system, although a recent movement to contain these effects in jurisprudence is observed. The data analyzed demonstrate that a reconfiguration of public faith is necessary, in order to create mechanisms compatible with the presumption of innocence, thus qualifying the legal due process 2025-12-11T00:00:00Z