Thread Content
What is a work-related injury? Classic cases of work-related injury recognition – learn quickly!* After an accident that results in injuries or deaths, can such injuries be classified as work-related injuries? This question seems simple at times – for example, in cases where someone is injured due to reasons unrelated to work, outside of working hours and at a location other than the workplace, it’s clear that such injuries cannot be considered work-related. But other times, the issue isn’t so straightforward, and even the agencies responsible for determining work-related injuries may not be able to reach a clear conclusion, leading to incorrect classifications. Recently, the Supreme People’s Court’s WeChat official account published two classic cases regarding the recognition of work-related injuries. Case 1: A safety officer died after failing to recover from an illness that occurred during the probationary period at work; the labor and social security authorities deemed it to be an occupational injury. The company where the employee worked sued the labor and social security authorities, but both the first and second instances ruled in favor of those authorities. On August 12, 2013, Chen fell ill suddenly at a construction project site owned by a certain construction company; he was taken to the hospital but died there despite attempts to save him. The death certificate states that the disease or condition that directly caused Chen’s death was sudden death, with cardiac sudden death being the most likely cause; the time interval between the onset of symptoms and death was approximately 3 hours. On April 3, 2015, Yang, the wife of Chen, applied to the District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau for work-related injury recognition. On June 1, 2015, the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of that district issued a Decision on Recognizing an Industrial Injury, determining that Chen’s accident was to be regarded as an industrial injury. A construction company filed a lawsuit in court, claiming that according to the medical certificate of death and the police interrogation records, Chen passed away around 7 a.m. The company’s employees start working at 9 a.m.; therefore, the time of Chen’s death was neither working hours nor a time spent preparing for work, and thus it does not fall under the circumstances considered equivalent to an work-related injury as stipulated by law. Hence, there is a request to revoke the \"Decision on Recognition of Work-Related Injury\". The Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of a certain district argued that, upon investigation, Chen’s onset of illness coincided with the normal working hours of the construction company, which is in line with Article 15, Paragraph 1, Item (1) of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance, which stipulates that deaths occurring due to sudden illness at the workplace during working hours, or deaths that occur within 48 hours despite attempts to save the victim, fall under the scope of work-related injury recognition. After the court of first instance dismissed the claims filed by a certain construction company, the company appealed to the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court. The Second Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing held that, in accordance with the provisions of the Work-related Injury Insurance Regulations, if an employee dies suddenly from an illness while at work and at his or her workplace, or dies within 48 hours despite rescue efforts, it is regarded as a work-related injury. If the employee or his/her close relatives consider it to be a work-related injury, but the employer does not consider it so, the employer shall bear the burden of proof. Accordingly, on August 19, 2016, the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court dismissed the company’s appeal in final judgment, upholding the decision of the court of first instance. http://mmbiz.qpic.cn/mmbiz_png/RdXHAkGB36aibKFYUTibqQEZzocWlQRAoyvb8ibPrEcrPhQe4hfmyhEjgzLuVYhTabK63HeIIfwrw5lHAPxwzggJA/640?wx_fmt=png&tp=webp&wxfrom=5&wx_lazy=1 The judge stated that, in this case, the existing evidence proves that \"Chen had an employment relationship with a certain construction company, working as a safety officer at that company’s construction site. On August 12, 2013, Chen fell ill suddenly at the company’s site and died on the same day.\" The construction company claimed that Chen’s injury was not considered a work-related injury, but the evidence it provided could not support this claim; moreover, there were no legal circumstances that would prevent Chen’s injury from being recognized as a work-related injury or treated as such. The \"Decision on Recognizing an Work-Related Injury\" issued by the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of a certain district features clear fact-finding, correct application of laws, and lawful procedures, and should therefore be upheld in accordance with the law. Case 2: A loader, after drinking alcohol, died in a traffic accident while riding someone else’s motorcycle to work; the labor department determined that it was not a work-related injury. The family filed a lawsuit against the labor department, and the court ruled that the department had applied the law incorrectly. Liu works in loading and unloading. At noon on September 7, 2013, Liu went home from work to have lunch. On his way back to work aboard Lan’s motorcycle, he was struck by the vehicle driven by Gao, resulting in his death despite attempts to save him. After investigating the accident, the public security authorities determined that Lan’s blood alcohol concentration was 188.9 mg/100ml, indicating that he was drunk and thus bore primary responsibility for the accident. No alcohol was detected in Gao’s blood, but he still carried secondary responsibility for the accident. Liu’s blood alcohol concentration was 220.8 mg/100ml, and he had no responsibility in the accident. Afterward, Liu’s wife, Cao, submitted an application to the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of a certain district for recognition of Liu’s death as an occupational injury, requesting that it be confirmed that Liu’s death was resulting from an occupational injury. The Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of the district believes that Liu was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident, and his death does not meet the criteria for recognizing it as a work-related injury; therefore, it has decided not to recognize it as such or to treat it as a work-related injury. Later, Mr. Cao applied for administrative reconsideration, and the reconsideration authority, ** in a certain district of Beijing, issued a decision upholding the original ruling. Cao then went to court to file an administrative lawsuit. After reviewing the case, the court held that the deceased, Liu, was not responsible for the accident. Although he was under the influence of alcohol at the time, there was no causal relationship between his drunken state and the occurrence of the traffic accident in question. The Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of the relevant district applied the law incorrectly, and this error should be corrected. The judge stated that, in accordance with Article 37, Paragraph (2) of the Social Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China, a conclusion that an injury constitutes a work-related injury or should be treated as such can only be avoided if there is a causal relationship between the act of intoxication and the accident. The Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of a certain district excluded all cases involving intoxication from the scope of work-related injuries without determining whether there was a causal relationship between the act of intoxication and the occurrence of the injury, which constitutes an error in the application of the law and should be corrected.