Work-related injury case sharing (7): Injured in a traffic accident while leaving work without permission during duty hours – can it be classified as a work-related injury?
Thread Content
Case Review Zhang is an employee of a certain company. On February 8, 2014, Zhang left his post at the security booth without permission for personal reasons and rode a bicycle away; on his way back to the workplace, he was involved in a traffic accident and died on the spot (the traffic police determined that Zhang was not at fault in this accident). Afterward, Zhang’s family filed an application for work-related injury recognition with the local social insurance administration. After conducting an investigation, the local social insurance administration decided not to recognize Zhang’s injury as a work-related one, in accordance with items (5) and (6) of Article 14 of the Work-Related Injury Insurance Regulations. Zhang’s family was not satisfied and filed an application for administrative reconsideration with the local people’s ** authority. The administrative reconsideration body there upheld the decision made by the social insurance administration department to deny recognition of the injury as a work-related injury. Case Analysis: Article 14, Paragraph (5) of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance stipulates that injuries sustained by employees while on business trips due to work-related reasons, or situations where they go missing as a result of an accident, can be considered work-related injuries. Article 14, Paragraph (6) of the same regulations specifies that injuries incurred by employees during their commutes, as a result of traffic accidents or accidents involving urban rail transit, passenger ferries, or trains, provided that the employees are not primarily at fault, can also be regarded as work-related injuries. In this case, although Zhang was found not at fault by the traffic police in the traffic accident, the fact that he left his post without permission during working hours and thus caused the accident resulting in death does not meet either of the requirements specified in Articles 14(5) and (6) of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance, namely \"during a business trip\" or \"on the way to or from work\". In conclusion, the local social insurance administration department’s decision not to recognize Zhang’s injury as a work-related injury is in accordance with legal provisions.
The decision not to recognize Zhang’s injury as a work-related injury is in compliance with legal provisions. Our company has had similar incidents, which were not treated as work-related injuries either.
Correct, thorough, worth learning*.
The decision not to recognize Zhang’s injury as a work-related injury is in compliance with legal provisions.
The decision not to recognize Zhang’s injury as a work-related injury is in compliance with legal provisions.
Relationships still matter. In my previous company, there was a project manager who would work shifts at night or work overtime. Three of them went out to drink, then rode their motorcycles and crashed straight into the back of a truck parked by the road; despite efforts to save him, he died. At that time, large vehicles were not required to have fluorescent reflective strips, and truck drivers would eat at restaurants by the road. In the end, it was still the family members who approached the general manager and demanded that the company pay some compensation, and eventually the company did pay it.
It can’t be considered a work-related injury after all; it has nothing to do with work and is classified as leaving the job without permission.