Learn legal knowledge on protecting rights in work-related accidents from cases*

Thread Content

Below are some typical cases related to work-related accidents; through these individual cases, they serve as another reminder to us about the importance of safety. 1. Can rehiring of retirees be recognized as a work-related injury? While working at a hotel, 62-year-old Mr. He was injured by Zhao, a guest who had come to eat. Mr. He requested that his work-related injury be recognized, but the hotel argued that since he was 62 years old when he started working there, which is above the legal retirement age of 60, his case fell outside the scope of application of relevant labor laws and regulations, and therefore no recognition of his work-related injury should be granted. What do you think? Answer: It should be recognized as a work-related injury. After reviewing the case, the court held that, in accordance with the Constitution, people who have the ability to work must be protected by law when engaging in labor. **The relevant regulations do not exclude people who have exceeded the retirement age from the scope of work-related injury recognition. 2. Does an accident occurring to a part-time employee count as an occupational injury? Jia graduated from Qinghai Medical College. In the same year, he went to a traditional Chinese medicine hospital to provide temporary medical assistance. The hospital assigned A to assist doctors with tasks such as changing dressings, writing medical records, and prescribing medications. Once, the entire hospital underwent a thorough cleaning. While cleaning the windows of the doctor’s office, A accidentally fell out of the window on the second floor. After emergency treatment, Jia became a vegetative state. Jia’s parents requested that it be recognized as a work-related injury, but the traditional Chinese medicine hospital argued that since Jia was an actual patient, it did not constitute a work-related injury and was merely a ordinary civil injury, therefore refusing to provide any work-related injury benefits. How should the court determine this? Answer: It should be recognized as a work-related injury. The court that handled the case concluded that a de facto labor relationship had been established between Party A and a certain traditional Chinese medicine hospital. Although Chinese law currently does not contain explicit provisions regarding the treatment of accidental injuries suffered by college students during their training periods as work-related injuries, such recognition is in line with the broad definition of work-related injuries stipulated in the \"Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance\" issued by the State Council in April 2003, and it also meets the requirements for establishing a sound labor insurance system. 3. Is an accident that occurs after switching posts considered a work-related injury? Wu Shefu was originally a worker hired by Lishui Junda Instrument Co., Ltd., where he worked in the gauge inspection department of that company; he was paid on a piece-rate basis. While at work, Wu saw that there was a shortage of staff in the riveting position within his team, which affected the workflow in his own position; so he went to help. During this process, he injured his right hand due to improper operation, resulting in a disability. The Municipal Bureau of Labor and Social Security classified it as a work-related injury, but the company disagreed and filed a lawsuit in court. The company believes that Wu was an employee hired by the company, working at the oil gauge inspection post in the assembly workshop. On the day of the incident, without any assignment or permission from the company or workshop management, Wu went to the riveting station and started the machine, which led to his injury. Since the injury occurred outside of the employee’s regular duties and without any temporary assignment by the company, it does not meet the criteria for recognizing it as an occupational injury; therefore, the regulatory documents issued by the Labor and Social Security Bureau regarding such occupational injuries are incorrect, and their cancellation is requested in accordance with the law. The Social Security Bureau believes that Wu was injured at work, in the workplace where the injury occurred, due to work-related reasons; and since it does not fall under circumstances such as intentional violation of rules that would exclude eligibility for work-related injury recognition, the conditions for recognizing it as a work-related injury are met. Wu also said that before the accident, he had helped out at the riveting station several times with other workers, and the company did not stop him; his work was part of his normal duties. So, is it considered a work-related injury? Answer: After reviewing the case, the court determined that although Wu was not injured while performing his own duties, assisting with other tasks still constituted work-related activity; this met the three basic criteria for recognizing an injury as work-related, namely occurring during working hours, in the workplace, and as a result of work. It also did not fall under the circumstances specified in Article 16 of the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance that exclude such injuries from being recognized as work-related. The decision by the Labor and Social Security Bureau to recognize it as a work-related injury was in line with the principle of no fault in determining work-related injuries, the principle of protecting workers’ legitimate rights and interests, as well as the specific provisions set out in relevant regulatory documents. Therefore, the judgment upholds the labor injury recognition decision issued by the Municipal Bureau of Labor and Social Security regarding Wu Shefu. 4. Can an injury sustained while performing work other than one’s regular duties during working hours be classified as a work-related injury? Yuan is a welder at a machinery factory. As he needed iron plates urgently for his welding work, he went to the sheet cutting room to get them. Since the workers there were not there, Yuan decided to operate the sheet cutting machine by himself to cut the iron plates; while inserting the iron plate, he was injured in his left hand by the machine. On that day, he was taken to the hospital by his employer for treatment; the hospital diagnosed him with amputations of his left index finger, middle finger, ring finger, and little finger, and he remained in the hospital for 25 days. Yuan submitted an application for work-related injury recognition. Answer: The factory submitted written evidence showing that Yuan’s normal job responsibilities were to weld cranes; he had no authority to go to the material cutting workshop to cut materials. By working in a position outside his scope of duties, he violated the operating procedures and caused injuries by operating the equipment without permission, which was not part of performing his assigned tasks. The relevant authorities believe that although Yuan operated the shearing machine on his own, he did so for work purposes; he was injured in a workplace, during working hours, and as a result of work. His injury falls under the provisions of Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Work-Related Injury Insurance Regulations. The factory disagreed and filed an administrative lawsuit in court. After consideration, the court held that the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance stipulate that if an employer believes that an injury is not work-related, the employer bears the burden of proof. In this case, after the labor bureau accepted Yuan’s application for recognition of his work-related injury, it issued a notice requiring the employer to provide evidence within a specified time frame; the employer failed to submit any evidence indicating that there were circumstances under which the injury could not be recognized as a work-related injury or treated as such according to relevant laws and regulations. Therefore, in accordance with the rules of evidence, it should be determined that Yuan’s injury is related to his work. Yuan operated the shearing machine out of a desire to benefit the company, rather than for personal gain; objectively, he was injured while working to generate economic benefits for the company, and therefore it should be classified as an occupational injury. The Labor Bureau’s decision that Yuan suffered an injury at work is supported by sufficient evidence and the correct application of law; it should be upheld. The factory believes that Yuan violated the operating procedures by operating the equipment without permission, resulting in injuries, and can be dealt with as a violation of labor discipline. It can be seen from this that the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance do not stipulate that working at one’s regular job position is a legal requirement for recognizing an injury as work-related, nor do they consider an injury sustained by an employee while working in a different position to be a legal exclusion factor for such recognition. Article 6 of the Reply on Issues Concerning the Handling of Work-Related Injury Disputes stipulates that injuries or deaths suffered by employees during working hours and in the workplace as a result of work-related reasons should be recognized as work-related injuries, even if the employees themselves bear some responsibility. The Ministry of Labor and Social Security’s Reply on the Interpretation of “Intentional Violation of Regulations” states that intentional violation of regulations refers specifically to acts that are extremely serious, carried out with deliberate intent and purpose. In handling the determination of work-related injuries, ordinary violations of regulations should not be regarded as \"intentional violations\". 5. Does violating traffic rules on the way to work count as a work-related injury? Ren, an employee of a certain company, ran a red light at an intersection in the morning while taking his child to school, fearing he would be late for work; unfortunately, he was hit by a car and suffered a fracture in his left leg. Ren submitted an application to the company for recognition of his injury as a work-related injury, but the company refused, arguing that according to the exemption clause in Article 16, Item 1 of the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance, injuries resulting from crimes or violations of public security regulations cannot be recognized as work-related injuries. Ren’s act of running a red light clearly violated Item 6 of Article 27 of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Penalties for Public Security Offenses, which stipulates that violations of traffic rules that lead to traffic accidents but do not warrant criminal punishment are also covered by this exemption. In light of the above facts, what do you think the local Labor and Social Security Bureau should do? Answer: Under normal circumstances, it should be classified as a work-related injury; the employer’s argument is not without merit. According to officials from the Welfare Insurance Department of the Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Labor and Social Security, this is a loophole that existed during the formulation of the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance. However, as the Regulations on Administrative Penalties for Public Order are upgraded to laws, the new Public Order Law will be more user-friendly, and this issue will also be resolved. At present, the Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Labor and Social Security, in conjunction with the Shanghai High People’s Court, is providing an interpretation of this issue in line with the intent of the legislation: road traffic accidents involving motor vehicles that occur on the way to or from work should generally be considered work-related injuries, unless there are other exceptions such as injuries or deaths caused by drunk driving, or self-harm or suicide. 6. Can an injury or death resulting from a traffic accident caused by a company driver’s illegal driving be classified as a work-related injury? Huang is a truck driver for a construction company. One day, he was assigned by the company to deliver materials to a construction site; on the way, he overshot the speed limit and collided with a vehicle coming from the opposite direction. The vehicle driven by Huang slipped into a ditch by the road, resulting in a fracture of his right ankle. The accident liability determination issued by the traffic management authorities held that Huang’s illegal overtaking was the main cause of the accident, and he should bear full responsibility. Consequently, the construction company did not apply to the local social insurance administrative department for a work-related injury determination. In April 2011, Huang himself submitted an application for work-related injury recognition to the local social security authorities. In May, the social security authority issued a notice confirming that Huang’s injury was considered an occupational injury. The construction company disputed the decision regarding the work-related injury and filed an administrative lawsuit in the local court, arguing that the traffic management authorities had determined that Huang was fully responsible for the accident, and that his injuries were the result of his own illegal driving, so he should not be entitled to work-related injury benefits. Answer: The court held that, in accordance with Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance, if an employee suffers an injury in a traffic accident while at work and within the workplace due to work-related reasons, it shall be recognized as a work-related injury. In this case, Huang was injured in a traffic accident while carrying out his job duties for his employer. Although the traffic authorities determined that Huang was fully responsible for the violation by overtaking illegally, his action constituted a mere negligent violation and did not constitute the crime of causing a traffic accident; therefore, it should be handled in accordance with the principle of compensation without liability under employee work-related injury insurance. The principle of uncompensated compensation means that when a work-related accident occurs, the injured worker should receive certain compensation without condition, regardless of whether the worker is at fault for the accident. The court ruling upheld the notice regarding the determination of the work-related injury. Work-related injuries should also be recognized for employees who drive in violation of regulations. 7. Should an injury suffered by a female worker due to an electric door be considered a work-related injury? 20-year-old Xiao Yang is an ordinary girl from Shuyang County; after graduating from school, she started working at Company A in that county. On an afternoon in October 2002, at around 1:20 p.m., Xiao Yang and his colleagues arrived at the company one after another. There were still 10 minutes left before work started, yet the company’s electric doors had not been opened yet. In a short while, dozens of company employees gathered outside the door. Seeing that they were about to be late, anxious Yang and several colleagues stepped forward in an attempt to pull open the iron door. With the efforts of several people, the door was finally pulled open enough to allow one person to pass through, and then the colleagues outside entered one after another. After a few people got in, someone outside shouted: “Open it wider; otherwise the bicycles won’t fit in.” Hearing his colleague’s shouts, the kind-hearted Xiao Yang kept pushing the door hard. At that moment, the electric door moved unexpectedly. Surprisingly, the door opened inward rather than outward; Xiao Yang, who was already standing between the gaps in the door, didn’t have time to react before the closing door trapped him tightly. It turned out that Xiao Zhuang, an employee who had entered through the main gate, heard his colleagues shouting outside. Out of kindness, he went to the reception area to press the button for the electric door; however, he pressed the button incorrectly, turning \"open\" into \"closed\", which caused Xiao Yang to get trapped by the door. Seeing this, several colleagues hurriedly took Xiao Yang to the hospital. Upon diagnosis, it was found that Xiao Yang had fractures in both his right ulna and radius. I pulled the door to avoid being late for work, while my colleague pressed the button in an attempt to open the door; if the company had a dedicated doorman, this wouldn’t have happened... The young Yang thought about many things. However, the most immediate issue at hand is who is responsible for his injuries. To protect his rights, Xiao Yang approached the company’s management and asked them to recognize his injury as a work-related injury. The company’s management refused to classify Yang’s injury as a work-related injury, arguing that she was not injured during the designated working hours or in the specified area, and that she suffered the injury by pushing the electric door on her own initiative; this led to a disagreement between the two parties. On November 10, 2002, Xiao Yang went to the Labor and Social Security Bureau of Shuyang County, requesting that the bureau classify his injury as an occupational injury. Upon review, on September 16, 2003, the Shuyang County Labor and Social Security Bureau issued a decision recognizing Xiao Yang’s injury as a work-related injury. Upon receiving the official document, Xiao Yang was overjoyed. To Xiao Yang’s surprise, Company A disagreed with the decision made by the Labor and Social Security Bureau regarding the work-related injury classification, and filed a lawsuit against the bureau as the defendant; Xiao Yang participated in the case as a third party. Plaintiff Company A argued that the facts as determined by the defendant were clear, but the classification of those facts was incorrect. The reasons for this are as follows: 1. Although there is no full-time gatekeeper at the plaintiff’s entrance, there is a clear division of responsibilities regarding the opening and closing of the gates, with no safety issues whatsoever ； 2. The third party, Xiao Yang, was not injured during his working hours and within the work area of the plaintiff ； 3. The injury suffered by the third party, Xiao Yang, was entirely caused by his own decision to push the electric door; his actions constituted \"intentional violation of regulations\", and therefore it should not be considered a work-related injury. Therefore, there are no factual or legal grounds for the defendant to determine that Xiao Yang’s disability is work-related; the plaintiff requests the people’s court to revoke the administrative decision made by the defendant. The defendant, the Shuyang County Labor and Social Security Bureau, submitted a reply to the court, arguing that the decision made by the bureau was based on clear facts, solid evidence, correct application of laws and regulations, and compliance with legal procedures. The third party’s disability occurred during the plaintiff’s regular working hours and within its workplace, as a result of unsafe conditions related to the plaintiff’s entrance gate ； Although the third party’s act of pushing open the door was improper, their subjective intention and purpose were to enter the company to work, rather than what the plaintiff described as “deliberately violating regulations”. Therefore, it is requested that the people’s court render a judgment in accordance with the law to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims. The third party, Xiao Yang, also expressed his opinion: The decision regarding the defendant’s work-related injury was based on clear facts, accurate classification, and proper application of the law; therefore, the court should uphold it. Answer: The court held that Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance stipulates that injuries sustained due to work reasons during working hours and in the workplace shall be recognized as work-related injuries ； The “time spent on production and work” as referred to in the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance means the time stipulated by the employer for employees to engage in their regular production and work duties as prescribed, as well as overtime hours or other types of time approved by the labor security administrative department; it also includes any temporary breaks during working hours as specified ； “The \"work area\" refers to the job positions assigned by the organization, the areas for working together, and the temporary rest areas during working hours. In this case, the plaintiff stipulated that employees should report to work at 1:30 p.m. Third party Xiao Yang arrived at the plaintiff’s premises around 1:20 p.m.; this should be regarded as being within the “time and area designated for production and work” by the plaintiff, and it was also caused by “work-related reasons” ； The plaintiff’s electric gates were not under the supervision of a dedicated staff member, nor were there any operating procedures in place; as a result, the plaintiff’s other employees caused injury to a third party due to operational errors, which indicates the presence of unsafe conditions ； A third party entered the company by forcing the door open, with the intention of arriving at work on time, and did not subjectively intend to violate the rules. In summary, the defendant’s determination that the third party’s disability is work-related is based on clear facts, with the correct application of laws and regulations and lawful procedures; therefore, this court supports it ； The plaintiff’s claim that the third party entered without arriving at the scheduled working time, forced open the electric gate, and entered the premises unauthorizedly, constituting intentional violation of rules and thus not qualifying as a work-related injury, lacks factual and legal basis, and the court does not support it. 8. Can an injury still be recognized as a work-related injury if full compensation for traffic damages has been received? Guo is an employee of a chemical plant and usually commutes to and from work by the company’s shuttle bus. On September 17, 1999, Guo failed to catch the bus to get to work because he had to take his child to school, so he took a bus instead. While changing buses, he was hit by a taxi and injured his left leg; he was hospitalized for over 20 days. After the accident, as determined by the traffic authorities, the taxi driver was held primarily responsible for it. In accordance with the Regulations on the Handling of Road Traffic Accidents, he was required to pay Mr. Guo the full amount of 5,988.74 yuan in compensation for medical expenses, nursing costs, and lost wages. After being discharged from the hospital, Guo requested his employer to provide him with a one-time disability allowance in accordance with work-related injury regulations, as well as to pay him his salary for the period of hospitalization. The chemical plant argued that Guo’s workplace was not on the route taken by the company’s shuttle bus, so it was not part of the necessary route for commuting, and therefore he was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits ； Even if it is determined to be a work-related injury, since Mr. Guo has already received compensation for the traffic accident, the factory is not required to provide him with any further work-related injury compensation. Guo disagreed and resorted to arbitration and the courts. What do you think should be the verdict? Answer: Guo should be recognized as having suffered a work-related injury and is entitled to relevant work-related injury insurance benefits. Moreover, although Guo has already received compensation for the accident, the request by Guo for the employer to provide an injury allowance and wages during the hospitalization period was still granted. The reason is as follows: According to Paragraph 6, Article 14 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance, injuries sustained in motor vehicle accidents on the way to or from work should be recognized as work-related injuries. In accordance with Article 28 of the former Ministry of Labor’s \"Provisional Measures for Work-Related Injury Insurance for Enterprise Employees,\" in the case of work-related injuries caused by traffic accidents, if compensation from the traffic accident has already covered medical expenses, funeral costs, nursing fees, expenses for disability aids, and lost wages, then the enterprise or the work-related injury insurance agency shall not provide any further compensation (the lost wages compensated under the traffic accident settlement are equivalent to work-related injury benefits) ； If a death compensation or disability allowance has already been paid, then no further one-time death benefit or one-time disability compensation from the work injury insurance will be granted (unless the amount of the death compensation or disability allowance is lower than that of the one-time death benefit or one-time disability compensation provided by the work injury insurance; in such cases, the employer or the work injury insurance agency shall cover the difference). In accordance with the above provisions, for work-related injuries caused by traffic accidents, employees cannot receive both work-related injury benefits and compensation for the traffic accident. However, the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance, which came into effect on January 1, 2004, no longer contain corresponding provisions on this matter. Article 12 of the \"Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Compensation for Personal Injury,\" which was issued on December 26, 2003 and came into effect on May 1, 2004, stipulates that when a worker suffers personal injury as a result of a work-related accident, such cases shall be handled in accordance with the \"Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance.\" ； If an employee suffers physical injury as a result of infringement by a third party other than the employer, the employee may request that third party to assume liability for compensation. Therefore, the court held that the relationship related to work-related injury insurance and the relationship related to compensation for traffic accident damages are two distinct legal relationships. Once the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance no longer stipulate that \"compensation for a traffic accident eliminates the need for corresponding work-related injury benefits,\" workers can fully enjoy work-related injury insurance benefits in accordance with those regulations, while also receiving compensation for traffic accident damages in accordance with the Provisions on Handling Road Traffic Accidents. In other words, one can receive both workers’ compensation and compensation for traffic accidents; in this case, Guo can obtain dual compensation for both workers’ injury issues and the damages resulting from the traffic accident.