>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Songye Stone Materials Factory v. Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau
松业石料厂诉荥阳市劳保局工伤认定案
【法宝引证码】

Songye Stone Materials Factory v. Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau
松业石料厂诉荥阳市劳保局工伤认定案

Songye Stone Materials Factory v. Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau
(Case on Ascertainment of Work-related Injury)

 

松业石料厂诉荥阳市劳保局工伤认定案

[Summary]

 【裁判摘要】

Under Article 59 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Issues concerning Evidenceof Administrative Lawsuit, where after accepting an application for work-relatedinjury certification, the labor and security administrative authority accordingto legal procedures requires the employer to provide relevant evidences within certainperiod of time, but the employer refuses to provide the evidence to theadministrative department without justifiable reason and later providesevidence to the people's court in an administrative lawsuit, the court mayreject the evidence.

 根据最高人民法院《关于行政诉讼证据若干问题的规定》第五十九条,劳动保障行政部门受理工伤认定申请后,依照法定程序要求用人单位在规定时间内提供相关证据,用人单位无正当理由拒不向行政机关提供证据,事后在行政诉讼程序中向人民法院提供的,人民法院可不予采纳。
BASIC FACTS 
Plaintiff: Songye Stone Materials Factory of Wangquan Village, Cuimiao Town, Xingyang City, Henan Province, domiciled at Wangquan Village, Cuimiao Town, Xingyang City. 原告:河南省荥阳市崔庙镇王泉村松业石料厂。住所地:荥阳市崔庙镇王泉村。
Person-in-charge: Wang Songye, chief of the factory. 负责人:王松业,该厂厂长。
Defendant: The Personnel, Labor and Social Security Bureau of Xingyang Municipality, Henan Province. 被告:河南省荥阳市人事劳动和社会保障局。
Legal Representative: Wang Hailin, director general of the bureau. 法定代表人:王海林,该局局长。
The Third Person: Li Xibo (also named Li Bo), male, 45, peasant, dwelling at Baizhao Village, Cuimiao Town, Xingyang City. 第三人:李喜波(又名李波),男,45岁,农民,住荥阳市崔庙镇白赵村。
The Personnel, Labor and Social Security Bureau of Xingyang Municipality, Henan Province (hereinafter referred to as Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau) ascertained in accordance with Item (1) of Article 14 of the “Regulation of the People's Republic of China on Work-related Injury Insurance” (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance”) by the No. 03 [2004] “Letter of Ascertainment of Work-related Injury” (hereinafter referred to as the No. 03 Letter of Ascertainment of the Work-related Injury) that, on May 21, 2003, Li Xibo, an employee of Songye Stone Materials Factory of Wangquan Village, Cuimiao Town, Xingyang City, Henan Province (hereinafter referred to as Songye Stone Materials Factory), was injured by a gallet in the right eye during his work, and the injury was a work-related injury. Songye Stone Materials Factory, the plaintiff, was dissatisfied with the ascertainment of the work-related injury, and brought an administrative lawsuit to the People's Court of Xingyang Municipality, Henan Province (hereinafter referred to as Xingyang Court). 河南省荥阳市人事劳动和社会保障局(以下简称荥阳市劳保局)根据《中华人民共和国工伤保险条例》(以下简称《工伤保险条例》)第十四条第一项的规定,以豫(劳)工伤认字[2004]03号《工伤认定通知书》(以下简称《03号工伤认定书》)认定:2003年5月21日,河南省荥阳市崔庙镇王泉村松业石料厂(以下简称松业石料厂)职工李喜波上班工作期间,因石片崩着右眼致伤,所受伤害为工伤。松业石料厂不服该工伤认定,向河南省荥阳市人民法院提起行政诉讼。
Songye Stone Materials Factory alleged that, Li Xibo said he was injured by a gallet in his right eye during his working time on May 21, 2003, but no one else who worked in Songye Stone Materials Factory saw it. Li Xibo did not apply for ascertainment of work-related injury until 9 months later, and only provided a testimonial of Li Xueliang when filing the application. The book of work records indicated that, Li Xueliang didn't go to work at all on May 21, 2003. How could he see Li Xibo was injured on that day? Further, Li Xueliang also issued a testimonial to Songye Stone Materials Factory on April 1, 2004, saying that he didn't know Li Xibo was injured in the eye at all. Cuimiao Health Center testified that Li Xibo saw a doctor for treatment of his oculopathy on May 14, 2003, which was earlier than May 21, 2003, the alleged date of work-related injury. All these facts implied that the so-called “injury by a gallet in his right eye during working time” was false. However, Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau ascertained Li Xibo's eye disease as a work-related injury according to Li Xibo's false statements, thus the fact was unclear and there was insufficient evidence to prove it. Songye Stone Materials Factory pleaded the court to overrule the No. 03 Letter of Ascertainment of the Work-related Injury which was made by Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau. 原告诉称:第三人李喜波称他是2003年5月21日上班工作期间被石片崩着右眼,然而在原告处干活的其他人,谁也没有看到这一情节。第三人在事隔9个月以后才去申请工伤认定,申请时只提供了一个李学亮的证明。从记工本上可以看出,2003年5月21日,李学亮根本没上班,怎么能在当天看到第三人受伤?再说2004年4月1日李学亮也给原告出具了证明,说他根本不知道第三人崩眼一事。崔庙卫生院证实,第三人在所谓的工伤日2003年5月21日之前的5月14日,已经在该院看过眼病。这一切说明,所谓“上班工作期间被石片崩着右眼”是假的。被告根据第三人的这一假话,将第三人的眼病认定为工伤,是事实不清、证据不足。请求判令撤销被告作出的《03号工伤认定书》。
Songye Stone Materials Factory submitted the following evidence: 原告提交以下证据:
1. A diagnosis certificate issued on May 13, 2004 in the name of Chen Yuzhuan, the ophthalmologist of Cuimiao Health Center, with the main contents as: the patient was named Li Xibo, who saw the doctor on May 14, 2003, and the diagnosis result was corneal ulcer; the doctor's treatment opinions were having more rests and treating the disease with medicine. This evidence proves that Li Xibo had eye disease before. 1.2004年5月13日以崔庙卫生院眼科医师陈玉转名义出具的诊断证明书,主要内容是:患者姓名李喜波,就诊时间2003年5月14日,诊断结果为角膜溃疡,医师处理意见是注意休息、药物治疗。用以证明李喜波早有眼疾;
2. A copy of Songye Stone Materials Factory's table of work records in May 2003, with the main contents as: Li Xibo did not go to work on May 15 through 17, 2003 and after May 24, and Li Xueliang did not go to work after May 21. This evidence proves that Li Xueliang's testimony on Li Xibo's injury during the working time on May 21 was not true. 2.松业石料厂2003年5月份记工表一份,主要内容是:2003年5月15日、16日、17日和24日以后,李喜波未上班,李学亮于5月21日以后未上班。用以证明李学亮关于李喜波在5月21日上班时间受伤的证言不真实;
3. An investigation transcript made by Songye Stone Materials Factory's authorized agent about Li Xueliang on September 3, 2004, with the main contents as: Usually, there were 7-8 persons working in Songye Stone Materials Factory, who were not far from each other, and if anyone had an accident, he would be noticed by others; Li Xueliang did not go to work on May 21, 2003, and did not know Li Xibo's injury in the eye, nor did he hear that Li Xibo went to hospital for treatment of his eye disease. It was Li Xibo who took the testimonial he prepared, and then required Li Xueliang to prove that Li Xibo was injured in the eye when both of them were working in Songye Stone Materials Factory. Li Xueliang did not know Li Xibo's injury in the eye, nor was he literate. He just signed the testimonial and pressed a finger mark on it. Later, Li Xueliang brought Li Xibo to Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau to testify. This time, he also signed a transcript prepared by others and pressed his finger mark on it. 3.2004年9月3日原告的委托代理人对李学亮的调查笔录一份,主要内容是:平时在松业石料厂有7—8个人干活,相距都不太远,如果有人出事,别人就会看到;2003年5月21日我(李学亮)未上班,不知道李喜波崩着眼的事,也没有听说李喜波去医院看眼睛;是李喜波拿来他事先写好的证明,说只要我证明我俩都在松业石料厂干活,他干活时把眼崩了就行。我不知道李喜波崩着眼这件事,也不识字,光在他写好的证明上签名捺了指印。后来李学亮又让我跟他去荥阳市劳保局作证,也是在人家写好的笔录上签名捺指印;
4. An investigation transcript made by Songye Stone Materials Factory's authorized agent about Li Haimu on September 3, 2004, with the main contents as: Li Haimu worked in the stone materials factory, and hardly stopped his work; he found Li Xibo's eye was red, but did not know when it began to be red and why it was red, nor did he know Li Xibo had been to the hospital except that he was told Li Xibo's eye was injured; the workers were close to each other when they worked, and if someone was injured in the eye, the accident would be known by others even if they didn't see it once they were told by the injured. 4.2004年9月3日原告的委托代理人对李海木的调查笔录一份,主要内容是:我(李海木)在石料厂干活,基本没有停过工;我看到李喜波的眼睛红,但从来不知道什么时间、什么原因使他的眼睛红,也不知道他去过医院,听他说是崩着眼了;我们在一起干活时的距离很近,如果有人崩着眼,别人应该知道,就是当场没看见,也会听他说一声;
5. The No. 03 Letter of Ascertainment of Work-related Injury, which was made by Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau on March 24, 2004. 5.2004年3月24日荥阳市劳保局作出的《03号工伤认定书》;
6. The No. 17 [2004] Letter of Administrative Reconsideration Decision (hereinafter referred to as the No. 17 Letter of Reconsideration Decision) made by the People's Government of Xingyang Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Government) on July 21, 2004, with the main contents as: it was verified after hearing that, at about 16 o'clock on May 21, 2003, Li Xibo, an employee of Songye Stone Materials Factory, was injured by a gallet in the right eye when smashing stone materials. Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau, the respondent, ascertained in accordance with Item (1) of Article 14 of the “Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance” that Li Xibo's injury was a work-related injury. In this ascertainment, the facts were clear, the evidence was sufficient, and the procedures were lawful. The Municipal Government decided in accordance with Item (1) of Paragraph 1 of Article 28 of the “Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People's Republic of China” to sustain the notification on ascertainment of the work-related injury. If Songye Stone Materials Factory was dissatisfied with the reconsideration decision, it could bring a lawsuit to Xingyang Court within 15 days as of receipt of the decision. 6.2004年7月21日荥阳市人民政府(以下简称市政府)作出的荥政(复决)字[2004]17号《行政复议决定书》(以下简称《17号复议决定书》),主要内容是:经审理查明,2003年5月21日16时许,松业石料厂职工李喜波在砸石片时,被石片崩伤右眼。被申请人荥阳市劳保局依据《工伤保险条例》第十四条第一项的规定,认定李喜波为工伤,事实清楚,证据充分,程序合法。根据《中华人民共和国行政复议法》第二十八条第一款第(一)项的规定,决定维持该工伤认定通知书。申请人松业石料厂若不服本复议决定,可于接到本决定书之日起15日内向荥阳市人民法院起诉。
Upon the application of Songye Stone Materials Factory, the court permitted Li Xueliang, a witness, to appear in the court to testify. Li Xueliang testified in the court that he did not go to work in the factory on May 21, 2003, and did not know Li Xibo's injury in the right eye. 经原告申请,法庭允许证人李学亮出庭作证。李学亮出庭作证时证明:2003年5月21日,其本人没有到厂里上班,不知道李喜波右眼受伤的事。
Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau argued that,After being injured when working in Songye Stone Materials Factory, Li Xibo applied to the Arbitration Section of Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau for arbitration of the dispute over compensation for the work-related injury since Songye Stone Materials Factory did not pay money for his medical treatment. As investigated by the Arbitration Section, Li Xibo was injured during his working time, which could be testified by Li Xueliang who worked together with Li Xibo. In addition, the diagnosis certificates respectively issued by the local clinic, Cuimiao Health Center and the No. 1 Subordinate Hospital of Henan College of Traditional Chinese Medicine, etc. on May 21, 2003 and thereafter all proved that Li Xibo was injured in the right eye. The facts were clear, and the evidence was sufficient. As Songye Stone Materials Factory did not acknowledge that Li Xibo's injury was a work-related injury, the Arbitration Section was unable to continue the arbitration, and Li Xibo had to apply to Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau for ascertainment of the work-related injury in February 2004. After accepting the application, Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau investigated Wang Songye, chief of Songye Stone Materials Factory, on March 4, 2004, and served the “Notification for Assistance in Investigation on Ascertainment of Work-related Injury” to him on the same day, requiring him to provide, within 10 days, Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau with the true facts and the evidence he knew, so that Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau could ascertain whether the injury was a work-related injury. On March 9, Songye Stone Materials Factory sent a letter of defense to Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau, which only said no one else who worked together with Li Xibo knew the fact, thus it did not think Li Xibo's injury in the eye was caused by a gallet during his working time. As Songye Stone Materials Factory did not attach any evidence to the letter of defense, nor could its defense overrule the evidence previously collected by Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau, Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau ascertained by the No. 03 Letter of Ascertainment of Work-related Injury that Li Xibo's injury was a work-related injury. In this ascertainment, the facts were clear, the evidence was conclusive, the procedures were lawful, and the laws were correctly applied, thus it should be sustained. 被告辩称:第三人在原告处工作期间受伤害后,由于原告不给出钱医治,故向被告下属的仲裁科申请工伤赔偿争议仲裁。经仲裁科调查,第三人工作期间受伤害,有一起工作的李学亮证明,还有当地诊所、崔庙卫生院以及河南中医学院第一附属医院等单位于2003年5月21日以后出具的诊断证明,均证明第三人的右眼有外伤,事实清楚,证据充分。由于原告不承认第三人所受伤害是工伤,仲裁科无法继续仲裁,第三人才于2004年2月向被告申请工伤认定。被告受理后,于2004年3月4日向原告的厂长王松业进行调查,当天还向其送达了《工伤认定协助调查通知书》,要求其在10天内将掌握的事实真相与证据向被告提供,以便被告作出是否为工伤的认定。3月9日,原告给被告送来一纸答辩书,只是说与第三人一起干活的其他人没有一人知道,因此认为第三人的眼伤不是在干活时被石片崩伤。由于原告没有随答辩书附来任何证据,所述理由也无法否定被告此前已经掌握的证据,故被告以《03号工伤认定书》认定第三人所受伤害为工伤。这个认定事实清楚、证据确凿、程序合法、适用法律正确,应当维持。
Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau submitted the following evidence: 被告提交以下证据:
1. A power of attorney for Li Xibo to authorize Li Lianbo to apply for ascertainment of work-related injury, Li Xibo's identity certificate, and Songye Stone Materials Factory's business license. 1.李喜波授权李连波代为申请工伤认定的委托书、李喜波的身份证明、松业石料厂的营业执照各一份;
2. An “Application Form for Ascertainment of Work-related Injury” as filled out by Li Xibo on February 20, 2004, which contained the opinions signed by Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau on February 23, 2004, i.e., “The materials are complete, and the Bureau consents to accept the application.” 2.2004年2月20日李喜波填写的《工伤认定申请表》一份,其上有2004年2月23日荥阳市劳保局签署的“材料齐全,同意受理”意见;
3. Li Xueliang's testimonial, whose main contents were: Li Xibo was injured in the eye when smashing stones in Songye Stone Materials Factory on May 21, 2003; he knew this fact because he was only one meter away from Li Xibo at that time. 3.李学亮证明一份,主要内容是:2003年5月21日,李喜波在松业石料厂打石块时,被石块崩伤了眼睛。因我干活时与李喜波只有一米远,故知道此事。
4. An investigation transcript made by Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau Arbitration Section about Wang Songye, the person-in-charge of Songye Stone Materials Factory, on July 14, 2003, with the main contents as: Li Xibo began to work at smashing stones in Songye Stone Materials Factory since November 2002. Li Xibo's eye was injured approximately on May 6 or 7, but he did tell others at that time. On May 9, Wang Songye's wife saw that Li Xibo's eye was red, and asked him if he suffered from any eye disease. He said he was injured by a gallet in the eye two or three days ago. Wang Songye's wife told him to see a doctor, he said it didn't matter. Wang Songye did not know whether Li Xibo went to see a doctor or not later. In the morning of approximately May 14, Li Xibo borrowed 10 Yuan from Wang Songye's wife to see a doctor. She did not have any change on her at that very moment and promised to lend the money to him in the afternoon. But Li Xibo didn't borrow the money in the afternoon, nor did he mention treating his eye or borrowing money any more. 4.2003年7月14日,荥阳市劳保局仲裁科对松业石料厂负责人王松业的调查笔录一份,主要内容是:李喜波从2002年11月就在松业石料厂干破片石的活。李喜波的眼睛大概在5月6日、7日受伤,当时他没说。5月9日,我(王松业)爱人看到他眼很红,就问他是不是害眼了?他说是被片石崩着眼,已经两三天了。我爱人让他去看,他说没事,以后他看没看我不知道。大概5月14日早上,李喜波向我爱人借10元钱,说去看病。因当时没有零钱,说好下午给他,但他下午没有再要,此后也再没有提治眼、借钱的事。
5. An investigation transcript made by Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau Arbitration Section about Li Xueliang on July 21, 2003, with the main contents as: on a certain day after May 20, 2003 and before the end of May, Li Xueliang, Li Xibo and some other workers were smashing stones in Songye Stone Materials Factory when a flying gallet injured Li Xibo in the right eye. Li Xueliang looked at Li Xibo and found his eye was red. Later, Li Xibo worked for one or two days. After that, Li Xueliang knew nothing about Li Xibo. 5.2003年7月21日,荥阳市劳保局仲裁科对李学亮的调查笔录一份,主要内容是:2003年5月二十几日,我(李学亮)和李喜波等人在松业石料厂里破石头,飞起的石渣子碰伤李喜波右眼,当时我给他看了看,眼有些红。李喜波后来又干了一两天。再以后的情况我就不知道了。
6. An investigation transcript made by the Arbitration Section of Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau about Li Xibo on July 21, 2003, with the main contents as: Li Xibo was smashing stones at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon of May 21, 2003 when a flying gallet injured him in the right eye. Li Xueliang who worked there at that very moment tried to blow the gallet out of Li Xibo's eye but failed. On the next day, Li Xibo went to the clinic of the mine machinery factory to see a doctor. On May 23, Wang Songye's wife asked Li Xibo why his eye was red, and Li Xibo told her he was injured by a gallet. Later, Li Xibo went to Cuimiao Town Health Center for examination, and the doctor wrote a prescription including eye liquids and eye ointment, etc. for three days. After that, Li Xibo also went to the hospital of Zhengzhou College of Traditional Chinese Medicine for treatment. All the expenses were paid by Li Xibo himself with the money he borrowed. 6.2003年7月21日,荥阳市劳保局仲裁科对李喜波的调查笔录一份,主要内容是:2003年5月21日下午4点左右,我(李喜波)正在砸石片,飞起的石块碰伤我右眼。当时在场的李学亮为我吹了吹眼,说他不会拨,第二天我就到矿山机械厂的诊所去看。5月23日,老板娘(王松业的爱人)问我眼为什么红,我告诉她是石片碰伤的。后来又到崔庙镇卫生院检查,医生给开了眼药水、眼药膏等三天的药,还到郑州市中医学院医院治疗过,费用都是我借钱支付的。
7. A testimonial issued by Li Fenmei, doctor of the clinic of the mine machinery factory, on May 22, 2003, which proves that Li Xibo was treated in the clinic on that day due to his injury and the corneal ulcer in the eye, opacities and congestion in the vitreous body, and poor eyesight. 7.2003年5月22日矿山机械厂诊所李芬梅出具的证明一份,证明当日李喜波因眼外伤、角膜溃疡、玻璃体混浊充血、视力模糊在该所进行治疗。
8. The outpatient service fee charge receipts issued by the clinic of the mine machinery factory separately on May 22, 23 and 24, 2003. 8.矿山机械厂诊所2003年5月22日、23日、24日出具的门诊收费票据各一份。
9. A “Diagnosis Certificate” issued by Cuimiao Health Center on May 26, 2003, with the main contents as: Li Xibo, the patient, complained that he was injured by a gallet in the right eye one and a half days ago, and then had poor eyesight; his right eyelid and conjunctiva were examined to have obvious congestion, and the cornea of the right eye had the white soakage of approximately 2mm×2mm, with the unclear boundary and clear iris veins; he could not see the fundus of his eye. He was diagnosed to suffer from injury and corneal ulcer in the right eye; and the treatment opinions were to have more rests and to take some medicine, and meanwhile he was proposed to stay in hospital. The opinions were signed by the ophthalmologist Chen Yuzhuan. 9.2003年5月26日崔庙卫生院出具的《诊断证明书》一份,主要内容是:患者李喜波主诉右眼被石子碰伤一天余伴视物不清;检查见右眼睑及球结膜充血明显,右眼角膜有约2mm×2mm白色浸润,边界不清,虹膜纹理清晰,眼底不能窥及;诊断为右眼外伤、右眼角膜溃疡;处理意见为注意休息,药物治疗,建议住院。落款为眼科医师陈玉转。
10. A “Diagnosis Certificate” issued by the No. 1 Subordinate Hospital of Henan College of Traditional Chinese Medicine on June 18, 2003, with the main contents as: Li Xibo, the patient, was examined to have conjunctiva congestion in his right eye; the cornea crinkled towards back and inside, and had 4×4 white round soakage; the central part was concave, with the boundary and the iris veins to be unclear; the intraocular lens was cuneal and opacified, the vitreous body had haemorrhage, and he could not see anything with the fundus of his eye. He was diagnosed to suffer from injury, corneal ulcer and vitreous body haemorrhage in the right eye; and in the treatment opinion he was suggested to stay in hospital for treatment. The opinion was signed by the ophthalmologist Deng Haixian. 10.2003年6月18日河南中医学院第一附属医院出具的《诊断说明书》一份,主要内容是:检查患者李喜波右眼结膜充血,角膜后内皮皱折,角膜有4×4圆形白色浸润,中心凹陷,边界不清,虹膜纹理不清,晶体呈楔状混浊,玻璃体积血,眼底不能窥及;诊断为右眼外伤、角膜溃疡、玻璃体积血;处理意见是建议住院治疗;落款为眼科医师邓海先。
11. An “Investigation Transcript on Ascertainment of Work-related Injury” made by Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau about Wang Songye, person-in-charge of Songye Stone Materials Factory, on March 4, 2004, with the main contents as: it was three days later that Wang Songye knew Li Xibo's injury; he knew Li Xibo was treated in Cuimiao Town Health Center after suffering from the injury, but did not know how Li Xibo was injured. 11.2004年3月4日荥阳市劳保局对松业石料厂负责人王松业进行的《工伤认定调查笔录》一份,主要内容是:我(王松业)是在三天后得知李喜波受伤,受伤后到崔庙镇卫生院治疗过,但对李喜波受伤的经过不清楚。
12. A defense written by Wang Songye on March 9, 2004, with the main contents as: Li Xibo's statement on his injury by the gallet when smashing stones was not true because no one else who worked together with him knew this incident. Li Xibo never missed his work from February to June. If his eye was injured by the gallet, how could he have worked? Li Xibo himself should provide evidence to prove whether his eye was injured by the gallet or accidentally injured by himself. 12.2004年3月9日王松业书写的答辩状一份,主要内容是:李喜波说他的眼睛是在打石头时被石渣所伤不是事实。理由是:与他一起干活的人没有一人知道此事;自2月份上班到6月份放假,李喜波一直没有误工。如果眼睛被石渣所伤,他怎能干活?李喜波的眼睛究竟是被石渣所伤还是他自己误伤,应当由他举证。
13. The No. 3 [2004] “Notification on Acceptance of Application for Ascertainment of Work-related Injury” issued by Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau on February 23, 2004, with the main contents as: Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau decided on that day to accept the application of Li Xibo for ascertainment of work-related injury. The No. 3 [2004] “Notification for Assistance in Investigation on Ascertainment of Work-related Injury” as issued by Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau on March 4, 2004, with the main contents as: Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau required Songye Stone Materials Factory to, within 10 days, send the materials relevant to Li Xibo's application for ascertainment of work-related injury, or send a person to make a statement on the eye. The notification was signed in by Wang Songye at 10 o'clock on March 4, 2004. 13.2004年2月23日荥阳市劳保局出具的豫(劳)工伤受字[2004]03号《工伤认定申请受理通知书》,主要内容是:当日决定受理李喜波提出的工伤认定申请。2004年3月4日荥阳市劳保局出具的豫(劳)工伤调字[2004]03号《工伤认定协助调查通知书》,主要内容是:要求松业石料厂10日内将与李喜波申请认定工伤有关的材料函告,或者派人来当面陈述。该通知书由王松业于2004年3月4日10时签收。
14. The No. 03 Letter of Ascertainment of Work-related Injury and the acknowledgement of service, which prove that the Notification for Ascertainment of Work-related Injury was served to Li Lianbo (Li Xibo's authorized agent) on March 30, 2004 and to Shi Aiju (Wang Songye's wife) on March 31. 14.《03号工伤认定书》及送达回证,证明该工伤认定通知书于2004年3月30日向李喜波的委托代理人李连波、3月31日向王松业的妻子史爱菊送达。
15. The No. 17 Letter of Reconsideration Decision made by the Municipal Government on July 21, 2004. 15.2004年7月21日市政府作出的《17号复议决定书》。
Li Xibo alleged that, he was injured by a gallet in the eye when working in Songye Stone Materials Factory. The fact was not only noticed by Li Xueliang who worked together, but also known by the doctors of the clinic of the mine machinery factory, Cuimiao Health Center and the No. 1 Subordinate Hospital of Henan College of Traditional Chinese Medicine. They all knew Li Xibo's eye was injured and the injury led to corneal ulcer. After Li Xibo was injured, Wang Songye, chief of Songye Stone Materials Factory, did not pay money for his medical treatment, and even refused to lend any money to Li Xibo. For the sake of medical treatment, Li Xibo had to sell grain and borrow money from neighbors and relatives. By then, he had spent a total of more than 1500 Yuan of medical expenses plus traveling and living expenses, and was still in need of treatment. The Arbitration Section of Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau did a great deal of work on this matter, but Wang Songye was too miserly to pay any money. After Li Xibo went to visit the provincial and municipal leaders for many times, Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau began to accept Li Xibo's application for ascertainment of work-related injury, and issued the No. 03 Letter of Ascertainment of Work-related Injury. However, Wang Songye did not give up; instead, he altered the table of work records under his control, threatened Li Xueliang not to testify for Li Xibo, and created a false diagnosis certificate via his nephew who worked in Cuimiao Health Center. Wang Songye tried to create a false impression that Li Xibo went to the hospital for treatment of corneal ulcer before May 21. However, Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau was not afraid of Wang Songye's frame-up, and made the No. 03 Letter of Ascertainment of Work-related Injury. Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau's behavior was to uphold justice, stand for fairness and serve the people. In this ascertainment, the facts were clear, the evidence was sufficient, and thus it should be sustained. 第三人称:第三人在原告松业石料厂干活时被石子崩伤眼,不仅有一起干活的李学亮看到,还有矿山机械厂诊所、崔庙卫生院以及河南中医学院第一附属医院的医师都看到过,他们都知道我的眼是外伤,因外伤才引起角膜溃疡。我受伤后,松业石料厂厂长王松业不给我治疗,甚至连我向他借钱去看病,他都不借。为治疗,我通过卖粮和向邻居、亲戚借钱,到现在用去医药费加往返路费、生活费有1500多元,仍然还要继续治疗。为此事,被告的仲裁科做了大量工作,无奈王松业一毛不拔。经第三人多次上访省、市领导,被告开始受理第三人的工伤认定申请,并出具《03号工伤认定书》。王松业不死心,篡改他手中掌握的记工表,威胁李学亮不给第三人作证,还通过他在崔庙卫生院工作的侄子搞出假诊断证明,非要制造一个第三人在5月21日前就到医院看过角膜溃疡的假象来混淆视听。被告不怕王松业的诬告陷害,作出《03号工伤认定书》,是伸张正义、主持公道、为民做主。该认定事实清楚,证据充分,应当维持。
The court presided over the cross-examination of evidence in the hearing. After the cross-examination, Songye Stone Materials Factory held that Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau's Evidence 1 was not signed by the authorizer, and the contents in Evidence 3 and 6 were untrue. Songye Stone Materials Factory had no objection against other evidence. Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau held that, Songye Stone Materials Factory's Evidence 1 through Evidence 4 were provided after expiry of the time limit for provision of evidence as required by Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau in the Notification for Assistance in Investigation on Ascertainment of Work-related Injury, and should belong to ineffective evidence. Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau had no objection to other evidence. Li Xibo held that Songye Stone Materials Factory's Evidence 1 and Evidence 3 were in conflict with Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau's Evidence 9 and Evidence 3, and were false evidence created by Wang Songye by utilization of his social relationship and money; Evidence 2 was formed up by Songye Stone Materials Factory itself, which had no authenticity or effectiveness; Evidence 4 was based on the investigation made by Songye Stone Materials Factory's agent about the workers who lived under their employer's despotic power and did not dare to tell the truth, thus the contents were untrue. Except for the abovementioned evidence, Li Xibo had no objection to other evidence provided by both parities. 法庭主持了庭审质证。经质证,原告认为:被告的证据1没有委托人签名,证据3、6的内容不实,对其他证据没有异议。被告认为:原告的证据1、2、3、4,都是超过被告向其下达的工伤认定协助调查通知书要求的举证期限后才举的证据,属于无效证据,对其他证据无异议。第三人认为:原告的证据1、3与被告的证据9、3矛盾,是王松业利用关系和金钱搞出的假证据;证据2是原告自己形成的,不具有真实性,没有效力;证据4是原告代理人对生活在企业主淫威下、不敢说真话的工人所作的调查,内容不真实;除此以外,对原、被告双方的其他证据无异议。
It was verified by Xingyang Court after cross-examination and confirmation of the evidence: 经质证、认证,荥阳市人民法院查明:
Li Xibo was an employee of Songye Stone Materials Factory. At about 16 o'clock on May 21, 2003, Li Xibo was injured by a flying gallet in the right eye when he smashed stones in the factory. He was diagnosed to suffer from injury and corneal ulcer in the right eye. After being injured, Li Xibo applied to Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau for arbitration of the dispute over compensation for work-related injury, and the Arbitration Section of Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau made investigations into this matter. Since Songye Stone Materials Factory insisted that Li Xibo's injury was not a work-related one, the arbitration failed, and Li Xibo had to apply to Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau on February 20, 2004 for ascertainment of work-related injury. Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau accepted the application on February 23, and sent a “Notification for Assistance in Investigation on Ascertainment of Work-related Injury” to Songye Stone Materials Factory on March 4, requiring Songye Stone Materials Factory to send, within 10 days, the materials relevant to Li Xibo's application for ascertainment of work-related injury or make a statement on the eye. However, within the specified time limit, Songye Stone Materials Factory only submitted to Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau a defense, saying that the injury was not a work-related injury, and did not attach any evidence. Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau made the No. 03 Letter of Ascertainment of Work-related Injury on March 24 on the basis of the investigation result and in accordance with Item (1) of Article 14 of the “Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance”, and ascertained Li Xibo's injury to be a work-related one. Songye Stone Materials Factory was dissatisfied, and applied to the Municipal Government for administrative reconsideration within the legal time limit. On July 21, the Municipal Government made the No. 17 Letter of Reconsideration Decision on sustaining the No. 03 Letter of Ascertainment of Work-related Injury. Songye Stone Materials Factory then brought an administrative lawsuit. 第三人李喜波是原告松业石料厂的职工。2003年5月21日16时许,李喜波在该厂砸石头时,被飞起的石片崩伤右眼,经诊断为右眼外伤、角膜溃疡。受伤后,李喜波向被告荥阳市劳保局申请工伤赔偿争议仲裁,荥阳市劳保局仲裁科进行了调查。由于松业石料厂坚持认为李喜波不构成工伤,仲裁无果,李喜波只得于2004年2月20日向荥阳市劳保局申请工伤认定。荥阳市劳保局于2月23日受理,并于3月4日向松业石料厂下达了《工伤认定协助调查通知书》,要求松业石料厂在10日内将与李喜波申请工伤认定的有关材料函告或当面陈述。在指定期限内,松业石料厂只向荥阳市劳保局提交了一份认为不构成工伤的答辩状,未附任何证据。荥阳市劳保局根据调查结果,依照《工伤保险条例》第十四条法宝第一项的规定,于3月24日作出《03号工伤认定书》,认定李喜波所受伤害为工伤。松业石料厂不眼,在法定期限内向市政府申请行政复议。7月21日,市政府以《17号复议决定书》,作出维持《03号工伤认定书》的决定。松业石料厂遂提起本案行政诉讼。
Xingyang Court held that, 荥阳市人民法院认为:
Article 59 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People's Court concerning Some Issues on Evidence in Administrative Litigation” (hereinafter referred to as the “Provisions on Evidence in Administrative Litigation我不休息我还能学”) prescribes: “Where the defendant requires the plaintiff in the administrative procedures in accordance with the legal procedures to provide evidence, but the plaintiff refused to provide the evidence which he ought to provide in accordance with the law, the evidence provided by the plaintiff in the litigation procedures shall generally not be adopted by the people's court.” In this case, after accepting Li Xibo's application for ascertainment of the work-related injury, Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau sent a “Notification for Assistance in Investigation on Ascertainment of Work-related Injury” to Songye Stone Materials Factory in accordance with Paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the “Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance”, notifying the factory to provide evidence within 10 days. However, after receipt of the Notification, Songye Stone Materials Factory did not provide any relevant evidence within the legal time limit except a defense. At the time of cross-examination, Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau proposed its objection on the grounds that Evidence 1 through Evidence 4 submitted by Songye Stone Materials Factory in the administrative litigation procedures violated the legal procedures, and that Li Xibo did not believe in such evidence. In accordance with the abovementioned judicial interpretation, the evidence submitted by Songye Stone Materials Factory after expiry of the legal time limit for the provision of evidence should not be adopted. As for other evidence submitted by Songye Stone Materials Factory, neither Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau nor Li Xibo proposed any objection, thus such other evidence was adopted. The testimony of Li Xueliang, the witness, was not adopted due to lack of authenticity. The evidence submitted by Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau was effective as it met the requirements of authenticity, legality and relevancy on evidence, and thus should be used as the basis for ascertaining the facts in this case. 最高人民法院《关于行政诉讼证据若干问题的规定》(以下简称《行政诉讼证据规定》)第五十九条规定:“被告在行政程序中依照法定程序要求原告提供证据,原告依法应当提供而拒不提供,在诉讼程序中提供的证据,人民法院一般不予采纳。”被告荥阳市劳保局受理第三人李喜波的工伤认定申请后,依照《工伤保险条例》第十九条第一款的规定,向原告松业石料厂下达了《工伤认定协助调查通知书》,通知该厂在10日内举证。松业石料厂接到通知书后,在法定期限内除提交一份答辩状外,并未提供任何相关的证据。在质证时,荥阳市劳保局以松业石料厂在行政诉讼程序中提交的证据1、2、3、4违反了法定程序、李喜波以这些证据内容不真实为由,提出异议。依照上述司法解释的规定,对松业石料厂超过法定举证期限提交的这些证据,不予采纳。对松业石料厂提交的其他证据,荥阳市劳保局和李喜波未提出异议,予以采纳。证人李学亮的当庭证言,因缺乏真实性,不予采纳。荥阳市劳保局提交的证据符合证据的真实性、合法性、关联性要求,属有效证据,应当作为认定本案事实的根据。
Article 14 of the “Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance” prescribes: “Where an employee is under any of the following circumstances, he shall be ascertained to suffer from a work-related injury: (1) Being injured in an accident due to a work-related cause which took place during the working time and within the working place…….” At about 16 o'clock on May 21, 2003, Li Xibo was injured by a flying gallet in the right eye when smashing stones in Songye Stone Materials Factory. This basic fact was testified not only by Li Xueliang, an employee who worked together in Songye Stone Materials Factory, but also by the evidence such as the diagnosis certificates and medical treatment fee charge receipts, etc. formed when Li Xibo was treated on May 21 and thereafter. The diagnosis certificate issued by each medical treatment entity testified that Li Xibo suffered from injury and corneal ulcer in the right eye. On the basis of the verified basic fact and in accordance with Item (1) of Article 14 of the “Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance”, Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau ascertained by the No. 03 Letter of Ascertainment of the Work-related Injury that Li Xibo's injury was a work-related one. In this ascertainment, the facts were clear, the evidence was conclusive, the laws and regulations were correctly applied, and the legal procedures were followed, therefore the No. 03 Letter of Ascertainment should be sustained. 工伤保险条例》第十四条
你怀了我的猴子
规定:“职工有下列情形之一的,应当认定为工伤:(一)在工作时间和工作场所内,因工作原因受到事故伤害的……。”2003年5月21日16时许,第三人李喜波在原告松业石料厂进行砸石头的工作时,被飞起的石片崩伤右眼。这一基本事实,不仅有在一起劳动的松业石料厂职工李学亮证实,更有5月21日以后李喜波就医期间形成的诊断证明、医疗收费票据等证据证实。各医疗单位出具的诊断证明均证实,李喜波为右眼外伤、角膜溃疡。被告荥阳市劳保局根据查明的这一基本事实,依照《工伤保险条例》第十四条第(一)项规定,以《03号工伤认定书》认定李喜波所受伤害为工伤。这一认定事实清楚,证据确凿,适用法律法规正确,符合法定程序,应当维持。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
To sum up, Xingyang Court adjudicated as follows on October 11, 2004 in accordance with Item (1) of Article 54 of the “Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China”: 据此,荥阳市人民法院依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第五十四条第(一)项的规定,于2004年10月11日判决:
The No. 03 Letter of Ascertainment of the Work-related Injury made by Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau was sustained; 维持被告荥阳市劳保局作出的《03号工伤认定书》。
The 100 Yuan of case acceptance fee should be borne by Songye Stone Materials Factory. 案件受理费100元,由原告松业石料厂负担。
After the judgment of the first instance was announced, Songye Stone Materials Factory was dissatisfied and appealed to the Intermediate People's Court of Zhengzhou Municipality, Henan Province (hereinafter referred to as Zhengzhou Intermediate Court) on the following grounds: 1. with regard to the key issue of whether the injury was a work-related injury, the evidence held by Songye Stone Materials Factory was contrary to that held by Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau. As prescribed in the judicial interpretation, the evidence provided by the administered party in the litigation procedures but not in the administrative procedures “shall generally not be adopted”, but the judicial interpretation does not prescribe that it “shall not be adopted at all”. Xingyang Court's refusal to adopt the evidence submitted by Songye Stone Materials Factory did not conform to the principle of seeking truth from facts, and was thus wrong; 2. Li Xibo was not injured due to a cause that took place during the working time, but Xingyang Court cited Article 14 of the “Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance” to adjudicate to sustain the decision of Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau on ascertainment of the work-related injury. It was a wrong application of law. Songye Stone Materials Factory pleaded Zhengzhou Intermediate Court to overrule the judgment of the first instance and to render a new judgment in accordance with the law. 一审宣判后,松业石料厂不服,向河南省郑州市中级人民法院提出上诉,理由是:1.在是否工伤这个关键问题上,上诉人持有与被上诉人截然相反的证据。对行政相对人没有在行政程序中提供而在诉讼程序中提供的证据,司法解释的规定是“一般不予采纳”,不是一律不予采纳。一审不采纳上诉人提交的证据,不符合实事求是原则,是错误的;2.第三人不是在上班期间因工作原因受伤,一审引用《工伤保险条例》第十四条的规定判决维持被上诉人的工伤认定决定,是适用法律错误。请求撤销原判,依法改判。
Zhengzhou Intermediate Court confirmed after hearing that the facts verified in the first instance were true. 郑州市中级人民法院经审理,确认一审查明的事实属实。
DISPUTED ISSUES 
The focus of the dispute in this case was whether the people's court should adopt the evidence which Songye Stone Materials Factory did not submit in the administrative procedures but submitted in the litigation procedures. 本案争议焦点是:对松业石料厂在行政程序中未提交而在诉讼程序中提交的证据,人民法院应否采纳?
JUDGMENT'S REASONING 
Zhengzhou Intermediate Court held that, 河南省郑州市中级人民法院认为:
The four pieces of evidence which Songye Stone Materials Factory did not submit in the administrative procedures but submitted in the litigation procedures were objected by both Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau and Li Xibo during cross-examination of evidence in the first instance. Since the judicial interpretation prescribes that the evidence concerned “shall generally not be adopted”, but does not prescribe it “shall not be adopted at all”, we should, when deciding whether to adopt or abandon such evidence, not only formally care when the evidence was submitted, but also substantially care whether the adoption of such evidence was beneficial for the people's court to verify the facts. The four pieces of evidence were: 1. The diagnosis certificate issued in the name of Chen Yuzhuan, ophthalmologist of Cuimiao Health Center, on May 13, 2004, which proves that an ordinary patient was diagnosed in the health center on May 14, 2003. On May 26, 2003, Cuimiao Health Center issued a “Diagnosis Certificate” to Li Xibo in the name of the same doctor, stating that the patient complained he was injured by a gallet in the right eye one and a half days ago, and then had poor eyesight; the doctor's diagnosis result was injury and corneal ulcer in the right eye. The diagnosis certificate issued on May 13, 2004 advanced Li Xibo's date of diagnosis from May 26, 2003 to May 14, 2003, and modified Li Xibo's diagnosis result from injury and corneal ulcer in the right eye into corneal ulcer. There was neither the patient's complaint nor anything found by the doctor in examination on this diagnosis certificate, and we could not know from the words which eye of the patient had corneal ulcer and why it had corneal ulcer. Furthermore, why Cuimiao Health Center issued such an incomplete diagnosis certificate after one year? Since the diagnosis certificate could clearly record the name of the patient who came to see a doctor one year ago, the accurate time of treatment, and the diagnosis result, why did it not say which eye of the patient was injured? If Cuimiao Health Center was based on the medical records to issue the diagnosis certificate, why did it not directly provide the medical records as evidence? If the diagnosis certificate dated May 13, 2004 reflected the true facts, then how should we explain the “Diagnosis Certificate” issued by Cuimiao Health Center on May 26, 2003? Cuimiao Health Center who issued the evidence and Songye Stone Materials Factory who provided evidence were obligated to explain all these doubts.2. Songye Stone Materials Factory's table of work records in May 2003. This evidence came from Songye Stone Materials Factory, and was written down by the work recording employee on a notebook, which was very easy to be falsified. If this evidence was confirmed by no other evidence, it should be of no probative force.3. An investigation transcript made by Songye Stone Materials Factory's authorized agent about Li Xueliang on September 3, 2004. Li Xueliang said in this transcript that he was illiterate and only pressed a finger mark on the contents prepared by others; he did not go to work on May 21, 2003, and did not know Li Xibo's injury in the eye, nor had he heard that Li Xibo went to the hospital for treatment of his eye. To Li Xibo who had an interest in the ascertainment of the work-related injury, Li Xueliang's this argument was sufficient to reverse the testimony issued by Li Xueliang earlier. However, Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau's functionaries had no interest relation in the ascertainment of the work-related injury; when Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau's functionaries were investigating Li Xueliang, Li Xueliang's statements were still consistent with the testimony he issued to Li Xibo. Such statements were recorded by Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau's functionaries in the archives. Li Xueliang's testimony after reversion of the previous evidence could not be adopted.4. An investigation transcript made by Songye Stone Materials Factory's authorized agent about Li Haimu on September 3, 2004. Li Haimu said in this transcript that the workers were close to each other when they worked, and if someone was injured in the eye, the accident would be known by others even if they didn't see it once they were told by the injured; while Li Haimu said he saw Li Xibo's eye was red and heard Li Xibo was injured in the eye. This testimony could not deny the fact that Li Xibo was injured in the eye during his working time. Furthermore, judging from the contents of the four pieces of evidence, such four pieces of evidence could completely be formed when the administrative organ was investigating the work-related injury. Had Songye Stone Materials Factory held such four pieces of evidence at that time, it would have completely been able to provide them to the administrative organ. Songye Stone Materials Factory did not submit the evidence to the administrative organ within the time limit specified in the “Notification for Assistance in Investigation on Ascertainment of Work-related Injury”, and thus practically violated Article 59 of the “Provisions on Evidence in Administrative Litigation”. It was correct for Xingyang Court to, under the circumstance that the evidence provided Songye Stone Materials Factory was questioned by the opposite party, decide in accordance with Article 59 of the “Provisions on Evidence in Administrative Litigation” not to adopt the said evidence. 上诉人松业石料厂未在行政程序中提交而在诉讼程序中提交的四个证据,被上诉人荥阳市劳保局和第三人李喜波在一审质证时均持异议。在决定取舍这样的证据时,司法解释既然规定“一般不予采纳”而不是“一律不予采纳”,就不能只从形式上看该证据是何时提交的,还应当从内容上看采纳该证据是否有利于人民法院查明案情。这四个证据是:1.2004年5月13日以崔庙卫生院眼科医师陈玉转名义出具的诊断证明书,所证内容是2003年5月14日一名普通患者在该院的就诊情况。2003年5月26日,崔庙卫生院曾以同一个医师的名义,为李喜波出具过一份《诊断证明书》,其上记载的患者主诉是右眼被石子碰伤一天余伴视物不清;医师诊断结果是右眼外伤、右眼角膜溃疡。2004年5月13日又出具的这份诊断证明书,把李喜波的就诊时间从2003年5月26日提前到2003年5月14日,把对李喜波的诊断结果从右眼外伤、右眼角膜溃疡改变为角膜溃疡。由于这份诊断证明书上既没有患者主诉也没有医师检查所见,从字面上无法得知患者是哪只眼角膜溃疡,因何溃疡。崔庙卫生院何以在一年后出具这样一份残缺不全的诊断证明书?该诊断证明书既然能对一年前的患者姓名、准确就医时间以及诊断结果记录得如此清晰,却为什么说不出患者是哪只眼有病?如果崔庙卫生院是靠该院病案记载内容出具这份诊断证明书的,为什么不能将病案记载内容直接作为证据提供?如果2004年5月13日的这份诊断证明书反映的是事实真相,那么崔庙卫生院对2003年5月26日出具的那份《诊断证明书》,又该作何解释?这些疑点,出具该证据的崔庙卫生院和提供该证据的松业石料厂有义务说明。2.松业石料厂2003年5月份的记工表。该证据出自松业石料厂,是记工员一人在笔记本上书写的,极易伪造,如无其他证据印证,则不具有证明力。3.2004年9月3日原告的委托代理人对李学亮的调查笔录一份。在这份笔录中,李学亮说:他不识字,只是在人家写好的内容上签名捺了指印;2003年5月21日他不上班,不知道李喜波崩着眼的事,也没有听说李喜波去医院看眼睛。对与工伤认定有利害关系的李喜波来说,李学亮的这一理由,足以推翻李学亮在先给其出具的证言。然而,荥阳市劳保局工作人员与工伤认定无任何利害关系;在荥阳市劳保局工作人员向李学亮调查时,李学亮所述内容仍与其给李喜波出具证言的内容一致,已经被荥阳市劳保局工作人员记录在案。李学亮翻证后的证言,不足采信。4.2004年9月3日原告的委托代理人对李海木的调查笔录一份。在这份笔录中,李海木说到:他们在一起干活时的距离很近,如果有人崩着眼,别人应该知道,就是当场没看见,也会听他说一声;而李海木说他既看到李喜波眼睛红,也听到李喜波说过是崩着眼了。该证言不能否定李喜波在工作时眼睛受伤的事实。再者,从四个证据的内容分析,这四个证据完全能在行政机关调查工伤情况时形成,松业石料厂当时如果持有这四个证据,完全有条件向行政机关提供。松业石料厂不在《工伤认定协助调查通知书》指定的期间内向行政机关提交这些证据,确实违背了《行政诉讼证据规定》五十九条的规定。一审在这些证据受到对方当事人质疑的情况下,根据《行政诉讼证据规定》五十九条的规定,决定不采纳松业石料厂提供的有疑问证据,是正确的。
JUDGMENT 
To sum up, after receipt of Li Xibo's application for ascertainment of the work-related injury, Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau ascertained through investigation and verification that Li Xibo's injury was a work-related injury. In this ascertainment, the facts were clear, the evidence was sufficient, the laws were correctly applied, and the procedures were lawfully observed. The judgment of the first instance sustained Xingyang Municipal Labor Security Bureau's decision on ascertainment of the work-related injury. In the ascertainment, the facts were clear, the laws were correctly applied, and the procedures were lawfully observed, thus the judgment of the first instance should be sustained. As analyzed above, Songye Stone Materials Factory's grounds for appeal could not be tenable, and should be rejected. Therefore, Zhengzhou Intermediate Court adjudicated in accordance with Item (1) of Article 61 of the “Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China” on January 14, 2005: 综上所述,被上诉人荥阳市劳保局在收到第三人李喜波的工伤认定申请后,经调查核实,认定李喜波所受伤害为工伤,认定事实清楚,证据充分,适用法规正确,程序合法。一审判决维持荥阳市劳保局作出的该工伤认定决定,认定事实清楚,适用法律正确,程序合法,应予维持。上诉人松业石料厂的上诉理由不能成立,应当驳回。据此,郑州市中级人民法院依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第六十一条第(一)项的规定,于2005年1月14日判决:
The appeal is rejected, and the judgment of the first instance is sustained. 驳回上诉,维持原判。
The 100 Yuan of litigation costs shall be borne by Songye Stone Materials Factory.

 诉讼费100元,由上诉人松业石料厂负担。
 

     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese