Work-related injuries 31: Is getting injured while pushing a bicycle before leaving work considered a work-related injury?

Thread Content

Case summary: Mao Qin is an employee of a bookstore company in Jiangshan, Quzhou (hereinafter referred to as the company). At around 5:50 p.m. on August 12, 2007, as work was coming to an end, Mao Qin went to the parking shed behind the company’s book store to take out her bicycle, intending to ride it to the stationery and audio-visual store where she worked in order to complete the handover procedures before heading home. Due to the rain and slippery roads that day, Mao Qin fell and got injured while riding her bike; she was later diagnosed by the People’s Hospital with a fracture of the right tibia and fibula. With an employee injured, the company manager was naturally worried. After Mao Qin’s condition stabilized following treatment, on August 28, 2007, the company submitted an application to the Jiangshan Human Resources, Labor and Social Security Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Social Security Bureau) to have Mao Qin’s injuries recognized as work-related injuries. After accepting the application, the Social Security Bureau conducted an investigation into how Mao Qin’s injuries occurred. It concluded that Mao Qin left her work post during working hours to go to the bike shed to get her bicycle; she intended to take it to the company’s stationery and audio-visual products store, complete the handover procedures, and then head home. Her actions and intentions were not related to her job duties, and the fact that she fell and got injured while riding her bicycle did not fall under the circumstances of work-related injury as stipulated in Articles 14 and 15 of the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance. On October 26, 2007, the Social Security Bureau issued the decision Jiang Ren Lao She (2007) Gong Shang Zi No. 269, rejecting the claim as a work-related injury and determining that Mao Qin’s injuries did not constitute a work-related injury. The company disagreed with this decision and filed an administrative reconsideration request with the Quzhou Social Security Bureau on December 21. On January 23, 2008, the Quzhou Social Security Bureau issued a decision on the administrative reconsideration, upholding the decision by the Jiangshan Social Security Bureau to deny recognition of the injury as a work-related injury. Case analysis: The company was still dissatisfied with the reconsideration decision and, as the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit on April 9, 2008, against the Jiangshan Social Security Bureau in the administrative tribunal of Jiangshan Court. Mao Qin appeared in court as a third party. After a public hearing, the court held that Mao Qin’s action of going to the parking lot to retrieve her bicycle shortly before quitting work in order to complete the handover procedures took place before work hours; therefore, this action and the resulting injury were related to her work. The Social Security Bureau’s view that Mao Qin’s injury had no connection to her work was inconsistent with the intent of Article 14 of the Work-related Injury Insurance Regulations. Its decision not to recognize Mao Qin’s injury as a work-related injury constituted an abuse of power, and should be revoked in accordance with the law. Thus, the plaintiff’s request to have the Social Security Bureau’s decision not to recognize the injury as a work-related injury revoked is justified and should be granted. To this end, in accordance with Article 54, Item (2), Sub-item 5 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China, the court rendered a judgment at first instance ordering the revocation of the decision issued by the defendant’s Social Security Bureau, namely Jiang Ren Lao She (2007) Gong Shang Zi No. 269, which denied recognition of the injury as a work-related injury; the defendant was required to issue a new decision within one month after the judgment took effect. Legal provision reference: 1. Article 54 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China: After conducting a trial, the people’s court shall render one of the following judgments depending on the circumstances: (1) If the specific administrative act is supported by solid evidence, the applicable laws and regulations are correctly applied, and the statutory procedures have been followed, the judgment shall be to uphold it. (II) Where a specific administrative act falls under any of the following circumstances, the judgment shall be to revoke it or revoke part of it, and the defendant may be ordered to issue a new specific administrative act: 1. Insufficient primary evidence ； 2. Errors in applicable laws and regulations ； 3. Violation of legal procedures ； 4. Exceeding authority ； 5. Those who abuse their power. (3) If the defendant fails to perform or delays in performing its statutory duties, it shall be ordered to do so within a specified period. (IV) If the administrative penalty is manifestly unfair, a judgment may be rendered to modify it. II. Article 14 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance: An employee shall be recognized as having a work-related injury under any of the following circumstances: (1) Suffering an accident injury due to work reasons during working hours and in the workplace ； (II) Suffering an accident injury while carrying out preparatory or concluding work related to the job inside the workplace before or after working hours ； (III) Suffering accidental injuries such as assaults while performing job duties during working hours and in the workplace ； (IV) Those suffering from occupational diseases ； (5) Injuries sustained due to work reasons or going missing in an accident while on a business trip ； (6) Injured in a motor vehicle accident on the way to or from work ； (7) Other circumstances stipulated by laws and administrative regulations to be recognized as work-related injuries. Conclusion: Recognized as a work-related injury