IPAJM denies SEDU teacher’s return. Records of the same medical assessment differ.

One assessment. Two entries on permanence.

These excerpts come from the supplementary appeal documents in case 2026.39.400959PA. I show only the fields needed. Both forms oppose an immediate return: the discrepancy does not authorise me to go back, but it does require an explanation.

Medical assessment report · 10 August 2026

PERMANENT: YES

Medical board assessment form · 10 August 2026

PERMANENT: NOvalid for: 1 year

Letter 014/2026/SPI/GPMS/DMS/IPAJM · 13 August 2026

Source: supplementary appeal annexes, pages 13, 15 and 14 respectively. Only the relevant fields are reproduced. The original documents are in Portuguese.

Article 12 of IPAJM Ordinance 011-R/2025 requires the medical report to state the validity date or the permanence of the invalidity. Article 14(III) exempts from reassessment anyone with an irreversible condition established in a report of permanent validity. The difference between the entries may affect the report’s validity and the reassessment arrangements. IPAJM should therefore explain the purpose and consequences of each entry.

Do the fields serve the same purpose in both documents? If so, why do they differ and which prevails? If not, what is the difference, and which record supports the refusal and the “permanently” in the letter? That is the explanation I demand from IPAJM.

SEDU, 2023: incapacity declared, then an order to return

The context must be stated: the notice formed part of a SEDU disciplinary procedure, linked to Ordinance 651-S. But the oversight office’s own record shows that in July I had been away from duty, by IPAJM’s decision, since February. So why order me back? I reported this sequence to IPAJM on 15/08/2023 (2023-M08QFZ). By 31/10/2026, 1,173 days later, I had found no specific reply.

How I reached this point

1. 1996

   I began my public-service career on a fixed-term contract with SEDU itself. I later worked in education and technology at other institutions.

2. 18/08/2016 · 201987014580

   I took up a permanent mathematics teaching post at SEDU. In 2019 I requested advancement based on my master’s degree, case 87014580. That employment dispute is separate from this pension reversal application.

3. 23/02/2023 · 07/2023

   A medical statement recorded total and definitive incapacity. In July SEDU instructed me to resume duty or face unexcused absences. Its internal oversight office later stated that the sanction linked to Order No. 651-S had no practical effect because I was already on IPAJM leave; it did not specifically declare the return-to-duty instruction ineffective.

4. 15/08/20232023-M08QFZ

   I informed IPAJM of the instruction to return. I found no specific reply in the records examined.

5. 24/06/2024

   The retirement decision was published, with effect from February 2023. I question the interval between its effective date and publication, and its consequences for reassessment.

6. 09/04/20262026.39.400959PA

   I applied for reversal of my disability retirement, supported by a private medical report dated 31 March 2026 favouring a return. That report does not bind the official medical board.

7. 24/07/2026e-OUV 2026072357

   I complained to the state ombudsman about the delay. After follow-up requests and reopening of the complaint, an assessment was scheduled.

8. 28/07/2026

   After the complaint, and 110 days after my application, IPAJM cited the two-year rule in Ordinance 011-R/2025.

9. 10/08/2026014/2026/SPI/GPMS/DMS/IPAJM

   The assessment took place 123 days after my application. Its records contain the validity entries shown above. The refusal letter is dated 13 August.

10. 03/09/20262026-VQ90WK / 2026-4NC5GF

    I lodged an administrative appeal against the refusal.

11. 02/10/2026 · 09–13/102026-CKSW4B / 2026-VCSB8R

    My medical records were made available 53 days after the assessment. I submitted supplementary appeal material in person on 9 October; its electronic registration followed on 13 October.

12. 23/10/2026

    An informal message proposed reassessment. I requested formal instructions, without refusing any properly issued direction.

13. 31/10/2026

    I had received no notification of a final appeal decision. This is the closing date of this account, not an automatically updated case status.

Transparency note: my April 2026 application was filed before the ordinary two-year mark after publication of the act, set by Article 3(II) of IPAJM Ordinance 011-R/2025 and reached on 24/06/2026. The assessment took place after that mark. My criticism concerns the content of the assessment and the decision on the appeal; it does not depend on claiming that the whole wait was an unlawful delay.

Thirteen requests and the outstanding questions

Since 2023 I have made 13 requests and submissions about my employment, medical, documentary and financial situation. The problem is not the number of filings: it is which questions still have no objective answer. I classified each one by comparing the request with the reply on record up to 31 October 2026. “No reply found” means that I found no communication addressed to me; it does not prove that no internal action occurred. Time runs to the reply shown or to 31 October 2026.

3 no reply found · 5 where the reply did not address the request · 2 vague · 2 partial · 1 still within reasonable time

It took about 62 minutes to reply “wait or supplement”. The communication of August 2023 has gone 1,173 days with no specific reply found.

Workplace harassment and exclusion from work: what questions does the literature raise?

This comparison does not claim that harassment occurred, and it attributes intent to no one. But the question is legitimate: since 2024, Espírito Santo has expressly prohibited moral harassment in the public service (Complementary Law 46/1994, Article 221(XXVII), added by Complementary Law 1,080/2024). In Assédio Moral no Trabalho, the Brazilian author Robson Zanetti presents the four phases described by the psychologist Heinz Leymann. Compare them with the facts recorded on this page.

1. Phase 1
   In the literatureEveryday workplace conflicts
   In my records

   2019: I requested advancement based on my master’s degree; four probation review cycles were formalised on a single day, with marks later revised.

2. Phase 2
   In the literatureHarassment takes hold (mobbing), with repeated hostile acts
   In my records

   Successive employment disputes with SEDU, one of them in court. Whether there were repeated hostile acts depends on a proper inquiry; I make no such claim here.

3. Phase 3
   In the literatureLate intervention by personnel management
   In my records

   I told IPAJM about the order to return on 15/08/2023. After 1,173 days I had found no specific reply. There have been 13 requests since 2023, and for 3 no reply has been found.

4. Phase 4
   In the literatureExclusion from the labour market. Among the means, the book lists withdrawing work while pay continues, prolonged absence and placement on invalidity.
   In my records

   I have been out of my post since 2023, on a benefit initially calculated at 60% of average contributory earnings. I asked to return, IPAJM refused and no decision on my appeal has been communicated.

The book lists placement on invalidity among the means of the exclusion phase and notes its high cost to society. It also records, citing Leymann, that some bureaucratic treatment tends to reproduce the structures of harassment. It also cites, as an employment-law precedent, a decision of the Regional Labour Court of the 17th Region, in Espírito Santo, which treated providing work as the employer’s main obligation and “a source of the employee’s dignity” (my translation). It was an employment case, different from mine. Brazil’s Constitution lists work among social rights (Article 6), which does not guarantee automatic reversal but shows what is at stake.

What I am not saying: I do not claim that harassment occurred, nor do I attribute intent to anyone. The book itself distinguishes workplace conflict from harassment and requires, among other things, repeated abusive acts, intent and proof. That finding belongs to the competent authorities. What the documents show is the sequence and the effect: a tenured teacher asks to return to his post and remains out of the classroom.

Source: Robson Zanetti, Assédio Moral no Trabalho (e-book, in Portuguese), ch. 8, pp. 99–102, drawing on Heinz Leymann; also pp. 27–41, 63–64 and 87.

The cost of continuing to wait

I am not claiming a post I never held. I am claiming the return to the public post I won by competition, from which I have been away since 2023.

The initial benefit is about 60% of average contributory earnings, not necessarily 60% of my final salary. I also question later recovery demands and the deduction calculations. The law allows overpayments to be deducted, and Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice protects a public employee’s objective good faith (Theme 1009): that is why I demand the statement, month by month.

There is also a public cost: the State continues paying a benefit to a qualified mathematics teacher seeking to return to the classroom. In the records communicated to me, I have not identified an individualised explanation of which duties of my position I would be unable to perform.

From where I stand, it feels like being held back: no post and reduced income. That is how I experience it, not a claim about anyone’s intent. Nor am I claiming that retirement prohibits every form of work. The restriction addressed here is returning to this post.

A career that readers can verify

I hold degrees in mathematics teaching and computer science, and a master’s degree in informatics from UFES. My career includes SEDU, educational technology teaching in Vila Velha’s municipal school system and IT development for Vitória’s municipal administration.

I continued studying after retirement: I completed two postgraduate specialisation courses in 2025 and 2026, developed the TEPe educational records software, registered with Brazil’s INPI, and was ranked in a public selection process for mathematics teaching. Qualifications and output do not replace a medical assessment; they provide verifiable context about the public employee requesting a reasoned decision.

Where I raised these questions

• IPAJM, the state public employees’ pension institute, and SEDU, the state education department: retirement, return, records, pension payments and employment matters.
• State ombudsman and SECONT/COGES oversight bodies: delays, record access and administrative procedures.
• MPES, the state public prosecutor’s office: submissions identified in the records. Matters with different objects remain separate.
• CRM-ES, the regional medical council: complaints concerning medical-record access and assessment procedures. Because the proceedings are confidential, their numbers and documents are not published here.
• Human-rights bodies, the state legislature and the courts: steps within their respective powers and separate proceedings.

A filing, complaint or investigation does not establish wrongdoing or amount to a finding against anyone. Public reference numbers are listed in the detailed Portuguese dossier.

What IPAJM and SEDU need to explain

1. Discrepancy: why do the report and the assessment form of 10/08/2026 carry different entries? What is the function of each field, which prevails and on what basis?
2. Capacity: which current, individualised limitations prevent which duties of a teacher? The text of Complementary Law 282/2004 published by IPAJM (Article 28) refers to incapacity for “all the activities” of the post. In which records is this shown?
3. Favourable report: how was the private medical report of 31/03/2026 assessed, and what technical grounds justify a different conclusion?
4. Adjusted duties: was reversal with adjusted duties (Constitution, Article 40(1)(I); Decree 6.266-R/2025, Articles 28–32) examined? Where is the conclusion?
5. SEDU: how does the declaration of total and definitive incapacity of February 2023 fit with the July notice to return, on pain of absences?
6. Appeal and amounts: what is the status of the appeal and its supplement, when will they be decided, and where are the answers to the 12 questions and the statement of deductions?

Official replies received will be published here, with date and source.

Records, updates and right of reply

This is a public complaint written by the person concerned, not independent reporting. The excerpts allow readers to check a documentary discrepancy; the criticism and classifications are mine. Work-capacity decisions and appeal determinations belong to the competent authorities.

The full archive is not published: it includes health data, personal information and documents from proceedings with restricted access. This page shows selected excerpts and references so that the questions can be understood; it does not allow everything to be checked in full. The absence of a document here does not mean it does not exist, just as showing a document does not by itself prove wrongdoing. IPAJM, SEDU and the other bodies mentioned may provide explanations, documents or corrections, which will be identified by date and source.

Explanations, corrections and institutional replies can be sent through the site’s contact page or to admin@tecnologiaeducacao.com.br. Do not send medical records or sensitive data.

Legislation and rulings cited

Summary for checking, with links to official texts where available. All are Brazilian sources, in Portuguese. The reading applied to this case is mine; the decision belongs to the competent authorities.

Return to the post, adjusted duties and work

• Constituição, art. 40, § 1º, I: disability retirement only when the employee cannot be reassigned, with mandatory periodic assessments.
• Constituição, art. 37, § 13: reassignment of tenured employees to compatible duties, keeping their pay.
• Constituição, arts. 1º, III e IV, e 6º: dignity, the social value of work and work as a social right.
• LC estadual nº 46/1994, arts. 51 e 51-A: return when the grounds for retirement no longer exist; reassignment.
• LC estadual nº 282/2004, art. 28: as amended by LC No. 938/2020, retirement requires total and definitive incapacity for the duties of the post and inability to be reassigned to suitable duties. The linked PDF must be read in light of subsequent amendments. IPAJM Procedure Standard No. 05.03/2025, items 4.1 and 4.3, also refers to the absence of residual work capacity for reassignment in the granting procedure; it took effect on 1 September 2025.
• Decreto estadual nº 6.266-R/2025, arts. 28 a 32: reassessment every two years, residual capacity and reversal with reassignment.
• Portaria IPAJM nº 011-R/2025, arts. 2º, 3º, 12, 13 e 14: summons, request after two years, statement of validity or permanence in the report, appeal and exemption from reassessment.
• Pacto Internacional dos Direitos Econômicos, Sociais e Culturais, art. 6º (Decreto nº 591/1992): right to work.

Decisions, reasons, deadlines and information

• Constituição, arts. 5º, LV e LXXVIII, e 37: adversarial process, right of defence, reasonable duration and principles of public administration.
• LC estadual nº 46/1994, art. 151, parágrafo único: benchmark of 30 days to decide requests and reconsideration; not a literal rule for the medical appeal.
• Lei nº 9.784/1999, arts. 48 e 50: federal law, used here as a benchmark: duty to decide and to give reasons for acts denying rights.
• Lei nº 13.460/2017, arts. 1º, § 1º, e 16: rights of public-service users, including in the states; ombudsman decision in 30 days, extendable once.
• Lei nº 12.527/2011, arts. 11 e 31: deadline for access to information and protection of personal information.
• Lei nº 13.709/2018 (LGPD), arts. 5º, II, e 11: health data are sensitive; that is why the archive is not published.

Payments and deductions

• LC estadual nº 282/2004, art. 16, II: allows deduction of payments exceeding the amount due.
• STJ, Tema Repetitivo 1009: undue payment through administrative error is repayable, unless the employee proves objective good faith.

Workplace harassment

• LC estadual nº 46/1994, art. 221, XXVII, incluído pela LC nº 1.080/2024: prohibits moral harassment in the state public service, with penalties up to dismissal. A 2024 rule.
• Robson Zanetti, Assédio Moral no Trabalho, p. 27-41 e 99-102: definition, requirements, phases and limits of the concept.
• TRT da 17ª Região, RO 1315.2000.00.17.00.1: cited in Zanetti’s book (pp. 63–64); an employment case, different from this one.

Public criticism and its limits

• Constituição, art. 5º, IV, IX, XIV, XXXIII e XXXIV: freedom of expression, information, petition and certificates.
• Constituição, art. 5º, V e X; Lei nº 13.188/2015: right of reply and protection of honour and image.
• LC estadual nº 46/1994, art. 221, III: prohibits disparaging authorities or public acts, while allowing criticism in a signed work.
• STJ, REsp 1.325.938/SE, Informativo 749: criticism of public acts is not, in principle, an abuse of press freedom, provided the core of privacy is preserved.