Work-related injury recognition tips 23: Can an injury sustained while using someone else’s ID to apply for a job be considered a work-related injury?

Thread Content

Case Introduction: In November 2006, Mr. Wu used someone else’s ID card to start working at an electrical appliance company, and no written labor contract was signed between the two parties. A few days later, Mr. Wu injured his left eye while at work; he was diagnosed with a penetrating injury to the cornea of his left eye, as well as traumatic cataract in that same eye. In March 2008, the labor department determined that Mr. Wu suffered a work-related injury. The electrical appliance company disagreed with this decision and, after an appeal, filed an administrative lawsuit in court seeking to have the determination of work-related injury revoked. The electrical company claimed that Mr. Wu, the third party, used forged identification documents to apply for a job there, and that no genuine and valid labor relationship existed between it and the plaintiff; therefore, the harm caused by such fraud should not be considered an occupational injury. Case Analysis: The labor department argued that Mr. Wu injured his left eye while working at the company. Although the party in question used someone else’s ID card when entering the plaintiff’s company, it cannot be denied that there was an employment relationship between the plaintiff and Mr. Wu. Mr. Wu was injured as a result of his work, and not due to any so-called \"fraud.\" The determination of an occupational injury is based on the principle of no-fault liability; therefore, the plaintiff’s arguments do not affect the determination of the occupational injury. After reviewing the case, the court supported the views of the labor authorities and upheld the decision regarding the occupational injury. It is a recognized principle in judicial practice that signing a labor contract under someone else’s identity card constitutes fraud, rendering the labor contract invalid. In this case, no labor contract was signed between the employer and the employee; the relationship between them is a de facto labor relationship. Could the employee’s fraudulent actions render this de facto labor relationship invalid? Obviously, the answer is no. A de facto labor relationship is a state, rather than a legal act; it is only legal acts that give rise to issues regarding validity. A de facto state is merely a reflection of objective circumstances, and thus there are no issues of validity, meaning there is also no possibility of it being invalid. According to relevant legal provisions, an de facto labor relationship does not affect the determination of work-related injuries. Therefore, the focus of dispute in this case is whether fraud affects the determination of work-related injuries Work-related injuries constitute a special type of tort, for which the principle of liability without fault applies. Since it is a principle of no fault, the subjective state of the perpetrator of the infringement is not taken into consideration, nor is the subjective fault of the victim, except for certain intentional acts excluded by the regulations on work-related injury insurance. Since there is no causal relationship between the fraud in this case and the harm suffered by the worker, the court does not take the factor of fraud into consideration; it is in line with the law to reject the view that harm caused by fraudulent acts does not constitute an occupational injury. Conclusion: It can be classified as an occupational injury. Additional note: It can indeed be considered an occupational injury, but the corresponding compensation may need to be determined based on local regulations, as standards vary from place to place. If someone suffers an injury at work by using someone else’s identity, even if the employer has paid the insurance premiums, the social insurance agency will not provide compensation to that person, as they are not listed as an insured individual in the records of the agency. As a result, in judicial practice, employees who use someone else’s identity to sign labor contracts with employers are at fault for fraud, but the employers also bear fault for failing to fulfill their proper verification obligations; the legal consequences arising therefrom should be shared by both parties in proportion to their respective degrees of fault. Some provinces and cities stipulate that employees injured at work shall bear the portion that should be paid by social insurance agencies, while employers shall bear the portion that should be paid by them ； Some provinces and cities stipulate that the work-related injury insurance fund should cover part of the costs, while the employers are also required to bear part of them. “Guidelines of the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court on the Trial of Cases Involving Work-related Injury Insurance Benefits” (adopted at the 3rd meeting of the Civil, Administrative and Enforcement Committee of the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court’s Judicial Committee on March 19, 2015) III. If an employer incurs losses related to social insurance due to an employee using fake identification to obtain insurance coverage, for those parts of the work-related injury insurance benefits that are supposed to be covered by the work-related injury insurance fund as stipulated by laws and regulations, if the person who used fake identification was over 16 years old at the time of the work-related injury, that person shall bear primary responsibility, while the employer shall bear secondary responsibility ； If the person using someone else’s identity suffers an work-related injury and is under 16 years of age, the employer shall bear primary responsibility, while the person who used the identity shall bear secondary responsibility. For the portions of work-related injury insurance benefits that are stipulated by laws and regulations to be covered by the employer, employees do not need to share in these costs; they are still paid in full by the employer.