Thread Content
Introduction: In China, an industrial injury insurance system is in place; workers who suffer accidents or contract occupational diseases as a result of their work are entitled to corresponding benefits under the Regulations on Industrial Injury Insurance. This design clearly ignores the significant difference between occupational diseases and ordinary work-related injuries, which directly results in legal provisions being inadequate when dealing with issues related to occupational diseases, leading to unfair outcomes as these provisions try to address too many matters at once. Facts of the case: In the 1990s, five individuals named Yang, Chen, Zhang, Wu, and Dai successively joined L Gemstone Factory in Huizhou, Guangdong (hereinafter referred to as “L Gemstone Factory”). It was a trade and processing factory operating under the “three-comes-one-compensation” model (which refers to processing based on supplied materials, processing according to provided samples, assembly using supplied parts, and compensation for related services), and it was established jointly by **L Company and a local economic development company in Huizhou. 5 people are engaged in pelletizing work, and they are exposed to a lot of dust during this task. Around 2002, 5 people and several other workers from the same factory were successively diagnosed with pneumoconiosis. Starting in 2003, L Gem Factory began to relocate to Shanwei, Guangdong. At that time, most of the workers suffering from occupational diseases were still under treatment, and their labor capacity levels had not been assessed; some patients had not even had their work-related injuries recognized officially. Several workers suffering from occupational diseases negotiated with the factory regarding treatment and subsequent compensation. Eventually, with the intervention of local labor and judicial authorities, L Gem Factory signed compensation agreements with these workers, agreeing to pay out one-time compensation amounts based on each worker’s condition at the time. It was stipulated that upon receiving this compensation, the workers would be considered to have received full compensation from the factory for \"all damages caused to them (including work-related injury benefits, subsequent treatments, advances in diagnosis, worsening of conditions, death, etc.), including all possible compensation items.\" This meant that the workers would \"terminate any financial disputes\" with the factory going forward and would \"never again file any claims or lawsuits\" against the factory or its affiliated companies for any reason. After the signing of this agreement, L Gem Factory paid the corresponding compensation to each of the workers who suffered from occupational diseases as agreed. Yang and Chen, along with four others, received their compensation and then left their jobs as planned, returning to their hometowns in Sichuan and Chongqing. In 2004, L Gem Factory moved entirely to Shanwei, Guangdong, and subsequently established new gemstone manufacturing companies, L1 Company and L2 Company. During the relocation process, **Company L**, the foreign-invested enterprise operating L Gem Factory, also signed an agreement with a local Chinese partner, a certain economic development company. Under this agreement, all debts of L Gem Factory would be borne by **Company L**, and any lawsuits arising therefrom would fall under the jurisdiction of Huizhou. Additionally, Company L1 provided a written commitment to voluntarily assume on behalf of **Company L** all debts and claims that arose during the operation of L Gem Factory as well as before and after the relocation (including amounts required to be paid as compensation for occupational diseases in accordance with the law). Furthermore, based on the judgment in another lawsuit filed by an employee of L Gem Factory suffering from an occupational disease, and the enforceable civil judgment with case number (2012) Hui Zhong Fa Min Si Zhong Zi No. 351, it was determined that Company L1 and Company L2 are actually the same company, indicating a confusion of corporate identities. Starting in 2012, Yang, Chen, and four others agreed to go to the Guangdong Provincial Institute for the Prevention and Control of Occupational Diseases again for an occupational disease diagnosis. As a result, each of them was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis at stages II to III. Later, the Huizhou Labor Ability Assessment Committee assessed their disabilities using the standard GB/T16180-2006 \"Assessment of Labor Ability – Grades of Disability Due to Work-related Injuries and Occupational Diseases\", assigning them disability grades ranging from level 4 to level 1. Taking Yang as an example: The arbitration and litigation proceedings The five individuals, including Yang and Chen, submitted a labor arbitration claim to the location where the former L Gem Factory was situated, after obtaining a diagnosis confirming their occupational diseases. They demanded that companies L1, L2, **L, and a certain economic development company jointly compensate them for the benefits related to their occupational diseases as well as for any physical harm suffered. However, the local labor dispute arbitration committee decided not to accept the case. Yang and Chen, along with three others, promptly filed a lawsuit in the local court, presenting claims that were identical to those in the arbitration. Yang’s claims – for whom it was determined that he suffered from pneumoconiosis at stage III and had a work-related injury of grade one – included requesting that the four defendants pay him a total of 2,453,185 yuan. This amount comprised a one-time disability allowance of 3,459 yuan per month for 27 months, amounting to 93,393 yuan (with 3,459 yuan being the average monthly wage for workers in Huizhou in 2012) ； Disability allowance: 3,459 yuan/month × 12 months/year × 23 years × 90% = 859,215.6 yuan (The 23-year period runs from the date of Yang’s injury in 2004 until he retired at the age of 60; Yang was 37 years old when his injury was recognized as an occupational injury) ； One-time work-related injury medical allowance: 3,459 yuan/month × 15 months = 51,885 yuan. It also includes disability compensation of 30,226.71 yuan per year × 100% × 20 years = 604,534.2 yuan ； Dependent’s living expenses (daughter born on November 28, 2001): (22,396.35 yuan/year × 16 years) ÷ 2 = 179,170.8 yuan. (Since Yang’s wife still has the ability to work, the cost of supporting their daughter should be shared by both spouses; therefore, the dependent’s living expenses need to be divided by 2.) It should be noted that, in accordance with Article 59 of the Law on the Prevention and Control of Occupational Diseases, in addition to being entitled to work-related injury insurance as provided by law, patients suffering from occupational diseases who also have the right to receive compensation under relevant civil laws may file claims for compensation against their employers. Furthermore, in line with the General Principles of the Civil Law and the Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Cases of Personal Injury Compensation, the items covered by such compensation include disability compensation, living expenses for dependents, compensation for mental distress, and costs related to subsequent treatment; the standards for compensation are specified in the Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Cases of Personal Injury Compensation. In addition, there are transportation costs of 1,347 yuan, examination fees of 271 yuan, costs for diagnosing occupational diseases of 1,500 yuan, and costs for assessing work capacity of 300 yuan, for a total of 3,418 yuan ； Hospitalization cost: 61,568.09 yuan ； Compensation for mental distress: 200,000 yuan ； The subsequent treatment costs are temporarily estimated at 400,000 yuan; they will be calculated based on the results of the assessment once it is completed. During the first-instance trial, the court commissioned a local appraisal agency to assess the costs of subsequent treatment required by the plaintiff. The court of first instance held that the plaintiff, Yang, having been legally recognized as having suffered a work-related injury and classified as having a labor function impairment (disability) of grade one, was entitled to work-related injury benefits in accordance with the law. Additionally, pursuant to Article 59 of the Law on the Prevention and Control of Occupational Diseases, Yang was also eligible to claim civil compensation. The court of first instance also confirmed the debt arrangement agreement among **Company L, a certain economic development company, and Company L2, ruling that the plaintiff’s claims should be met with joint and several liability for compensation by Companies L1 and L2. Regarding work-related injury benefits, in accordance with Article 35 of the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance, the compensation to which the plaintiff is entitled for this work-related injury is: a one-time disability allowance of 51,138 yuan (1,894 yuan/month × 27 months) ； Disability allowance: 204,552 yuan (1,894 yuan/month × 90% × 120 months); 1,894 yuan/month is the average monthly wage of workers in Huizhou City in 2004. The plaintiff’s claim for a one-time work-related injury medical allowance is not supported. Regarding civil compensation, the living expenses for the plaintiff’s daughter amount to 27,807.75 yuan (3,707.7 yuan/year × 15 years ÷ 2); compensation for mental distress is granted in the amount of 32,000 yuan. The claim for disability compensation submitted by the plaintiff is not approved. Regarding the costs for subsequent treatment, the court of first instance approved coverage for a period of 10 years; based on the expert assessment, these costs amount to 437,133 yuan, with any new expenses incurred thereafter being claimable separately. In addition, the plaintiff’s claims for 1,500 yuan for labor capacity assessment fees, 271 yuan for occupational disease diagnosis and examination fees, 1,347 yuan for transportation costs, and 67,097.92 yuan for medical expenses are supported based on the actual amounts incurred. In summary, after deducting the compensation of 125,000 yuan received by the plaintiff from L Gem Factory upon leaving her job in December 2004, as well as the 15,000 yuan for medical expenses paid in advance by L1 Company on January 14, 2014, L1 Company and L2 Company still owe the plaintiff a total of 267,136.67 yuan in compensation for work-related disabilities, disability allowances, living expenses for dependents, mental distress damages, costs related to assessing working capacity, costs for diagnosing and treating occupational diseases, transportation expenses, and medical expenses. Additionally, 422,133 yuan is due for future treatment costs. In September 2013, a local court in Huizhou rendered a first-instance judgment ordering L1 Company and L2 Company to jointly and severally pay Yang and Chen, along with three other individuals, compensation amounts ranging from 480,000 to 680,000 yuan each. The defendant disagreed and appealed to the Huizhou Intermediate People’s Court, which issued a final judgment on August 20, 2014, dismissing the appeal and upholding the original verdict. According to lawyers, at the current stage, China has a unified work-related injury insurance system; workers who suffer accidents or contract occupational diseases as a result of their work are entitled to corresponding benefits under the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance. On the surface, this provision seems to have no major issues, but it clearly ignores, either intentionally or unintentionally, the significant difference between occupational diseases and ordinary work-related injuries. As a result, in practice, when dealing with issues related to occupational diseases, legal provisions prove to be inadequate and unfair, as they fail to address all aspects of such situations properly. Occupational diseases and ordinary work-related injuries differ in that one is considered a \"disease\" while the other is a \"injury\"; there are significant differences between them in terms of causes, clinical manifestations, as well as subsequent treatment and rehabilitation. The differences lie in the fact that occupational diseases have an incubation period and arise due to occupational hazards present in the working environment along with insufficient occupational protection, whereas ordinary work-related injuries usually occur immediately and are not necessarily related to any subjective faults on the part of either the employer or the employee ； For occupational diseases to be recognized as work-related injuries, specialized diagnosis and assessment are required, whereas for ordinary work-related injuries, an application for recognition can be submitted immediately after the injury occurs ； Once contracted, most occupational diseases are difficult to cure permanently and tend to worsen over time; therefore, long-term or even lifelong treatment is required. In contrast, ordinary work-related injuries usually stabilize and heal after a period of treatment, and although they may also result in permanent disabilities, there is no ongoing medical dependency similar to that associated with occupational diseases. From the perspective of the pathological characteristics of occupational diseases, it can be seen that under a unified work-related injury insurance system, certain important forms of protection for workers suffering from occupational diseases may be unjustly terminated. This is also the most fundamental criterion for assessing whether the practice of employers settling all the benefits to which such workers are entitled in one go is reasonable and legal. On the other hand, social insurance is mandatory in our country; it is a legal obligation for employers to enroll their employees in such insurance. This obligation persists throughout the entire duration of the labor relationship, whether at the start of the relationship, during its continuation, or in the event of special circumstances such as an employee contracting an occupational disease or suffering an work-related injury. Employers are required by law to ensure that their employees are covered by social insurance. Furthermore, looking at the evolution of China’s work-related injury insurance system, **the provision of benefits under this insurance also tends to be in the form of long-term, continuous payments rather than a one-time settlement. The 2004 Notice on Issues Concerning Migrant Workers’ Participation in Work-related Injury Insurance (Labor and Social Security Ministry Document No. 18) stipulated that migrant workers could choose to receive their long-term benefits in a lump sum, in order to address the inconvenience of receiving benefits on a monthly basis after returning to their hometowns in the event of a work-related injury. Under the conditions at that time, this played an important role in encouraging migrant workers to participate in work-related injury insurance and protecting their rights and interests. With the improvement of the social insurance service network and the level of informatization, the conditions for receiving benefits in different locations have gradually been met. To ensure long-term and stable protection of the rights and interests of workers who have suffered work-related injuries, in 2013, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security issued the \"Opinions on Several Issues Concerning Implementation\" (Document No. 34 issued by the Ministry). Article 13 of these opinions stipulates clearly that: \"All benefits paid from the work-related injury insurance fund shall be disbursed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Regulations; it is not allowed to convert long-term benefits into one-time payments.\" ” Therefore, the author believes that, in line with the legislative purpose of the Labor Law to give priority to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of workers, taking into account the specific pathological manifestations of occupational diseases as well as the particular environmental factors that cause them (namely, the employer’s illegal faults that lead to occupational diseases), employers should not terminate once and for all the labor and social security relationships with workers who suffer from occupational diseases. Incidentally, by rejecting the \"private settlement\" agreement in terms of facts, this case also upheld the claims for civil compensation filed by the occupational disease patient (including expenses for dependents and compensation for mental distress), which is another example of a Guangdong regional court correctly applying Article 59 of the Law on the Prevention and Control of Occupational Diseases. Lawyer’s advice: This case is a typical example of a settlement regarding compensation for an occupational disease on a one-time basis. In reality, such settlements are common, and as a result, many of these settlement agreements are not questioned or rejected. On the one hand, this is because patients rarely raise objections on their own, resulting in few judicial cases related to such settlement agreements; on the other hand, it is also due to the differing views among various sectors of society, including those in the legal field, regarding such settlement agreements. It is likely that many legal professionals would not readily deny the legal validity of such agreements, as they conform to the general requirements of civil compensation agreements – being voluntary and lawful – and also meet some of the patient’s demands in terms of substance. Therefore, the author believes that this case holds great significance as a reference both for employers and for patients suffering from occupational diseases. From the employer’s perspective, if they ignore the condition of employees suffering from occupational diseases, and instead try to reduce their workload by shifting responsibilities onto these employees, rushing to reach a private settlement with them, while offering relatively harsh compensation terms—or even ignoring the minimum compensation standards set out in the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance—taking advantage of the employees’ lack of legal knowledge and their urgent need for money due to their illness, by continuously reducing the amount of one-time compensation offered. Although such a private settlement agreement may appear legal on the surface, and the employees might not pursue further claims against the employer after receiving the compensation, this is not actually the case. Such agreements, which impose excessive restrictions on the rights of the affected parties, may be deemed unfair or based on a serious misunderstanding. Moreover, they risk being revoked or invalidated because they deprive or unreasonably restrict the rights of the other party, or even violate relevant mandatory provisions. Therefore, for occupational diseases and work-related injuries, employers should use one-time settlement agreements with caution. From the perspective of workers, it is even more necessary to be cautious when signing such one-time, private settlement agreements. The reason is simple: once a civil contract is signed, it is generally difficult to invalidate or overturn it, unless there are obvious violations of the law or certain specific conditions are met. After all, courts are relatively cautious and conservative when dealing with lawsuits aimed at voiding or rendering civil contracts invalid. The reason why the 5 workers in this case were able to receive support is related to the significant changes in their conditions over time, as well as the relatively low standards for one-time compensation set forth in relevant regulations. It is also connected to certain peculiarities of this case and the way it was handled. Therefore, it should be clearly stated that this case is not sufficient to serve as an example for overturning one-time settlement agreements regarding occupational diseases.