>>>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
 
Yang Qingfeng v. Wuxi Labor and Social Security Bureau (Case of Administrative Controversy over the Ascertainment of Work-related Injuries)
杨庆峰诉无锡市劳动和社会保障局工伤认定行政纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Yang Qingfeng v. Wuxi Labor and Social Security Bureau (Case of Administrative Controversy over the Ascertainment of Work-related Injuries)
(Case of Administrative Controversy over the Ascertainment of Work-related Injuries)
杨庆峰诉无锡市劳动和社会保障局工伤认定行政纠纷案

Yang Qingfeng v. Wuxi Labor and Social Security Bureau
(Case of Administrative Controversy over the Ascertainment of Work-related Injuries)

 

杨庆峰诉无锡市劳动和社会保障局工伤认定行政纠纷案

[Judgment Abstract]

 【裁判摘要】

Under Paragraph 2, Article 17 of the Work-RelatedInjury Insurance Regulation, the time limit for work-related injury assessment applicationshall be calculated from the date when the injury accident occurred. The “datewhen the accident injury occurred” referred here shall include the date whenthe damage caused by the work-related injury accident actually occurred. Where nodamage actually occurred on the date the work-related injury accident happened,and the employee affected by the work-related injury filed an application toassess the work-related injury within one year after the damage actually occurred,time limit for work-related injury assessment application has not expired. 

 根据《工伤保险条例》第十七条第二款的规定,工伤认定申请时效应当从事故伤害发生之日起算。这里的“事故伤害发生之日”应当包括工伤事故导致的伤害结果实际发生之日。工伤事故发生时伤害结果尚未实际发生,工伤职工在伤害结果实际发生后一年内提出工伤认定申请的,不属于超过工伤认定申请时效的情形。

BASIC FACTS

 
Plaintiff: Yang Qingfeng, male, 19-year-old, employee of Wuxi Jiguan Vehicle Repair Co., Ltd., resides at the staff dormitory of Wuxi Jiguan Vehicle Repair Co., Ltd. 原告:杨庆峰,男,19岁,无锡市机关汽车修理有限责任公司职工,住无锡市机关汽车修理有限责任公司职工宿舍。
Defendant: Wuxi Labor and Social Security Bureau, located at Nanyuanxin Village of Wuxi. 被告:无锡市劳动和社会保障局。住所地:无锡市南苑新村。
Legal Representative: Qian Zongjian, director of the bureau. 法定代表人:钱宗建,该局局长。
Third Party: Wuxi Jiguan Vehicle Repair Co., Ltd., located at Qingyang Road of Wuxi. 第三人:无锡市机关汽车修理有限责任公司。住所地:无锡市清扬路。
Legal Representative: Wang Guoqiang, president of the company. 法定代表人:王国强,该公司董事长。
For the dispute over the ascertainment of the work-related injury, Yang Qingfeng brought an administrative litigation to the Nanchang District People's Court of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province against Wuxi Labor and Social Security Bureau (hereinafter referred to as Labor Bureau). 原告杨庆峰因与被告无锡市劳动和社会保障局(以下简称无锡市劳动局)发生工伤认定纠纷,向江苏省无锡市南长区人民法院提起行政诉讼。
The plaintiff claimed that: he worked for Wuxi Jiguan Vehicle Repair Institute (hereinafter referred to as Vehicle Repair Institute) from March 2004. Vehicle Repair Institute was later restructured into Wuxi Jiguan Vehicle Repair Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Vehicle Repair Company), the third party of this case. In June 2004, when he was dismantling the pull rod bulb of a vehicle with Wang Jicong, his master, an iron scrap jumped into his left eye when they knocked the bulb with a hammer. At that time, he only felt that his left eye was in pain and that he could not see things so clearly, so he stopped the work in hand. However, he did not pay much attention to the incident and Vehicle Repaid Institute did not sent him to hospital immediately. On October 3rd, 2006, he felt severe pain in the left eye and things became blurry in his left eye. On October 4th, he could not see anything with the left eye. Accompanied by his father, he went to a hospital for diagnosis and treatment. The diagnosis result was acute rust syndrome. After a surgical treatment, he gradually became stable, but his left eye lost sight permanently. Moreover, according to the doctor, in medical science, this syndrome, since it caused one eye lost sight, was highly probable of causing further infection and finally causing the other eye sightless. He brought a civil litigation to the Nanchang District People's Court of Wuxi on December 21st, 2006, claiming that Vehicle Repair Company and the higher administration thereof shall make compensation for his losses suffered from the incident involved in this case and pay for the follow-up treatment expenses. Upon trial, the court dismissed the claim as it believed that the plaintiff got personal injury from a work-related injury accident and the plaintiff shall request for work-related injury insurance indemnity. The plaintiff submitted an application for the ascertainment of work-related injury to Labor Bureau on April 9th, 2007. On April 11th, 2007, the defendant made a Notice of Dismiss on the ground that the statutory time limit for the plaintiff to apply for the ascertainment of work-related injury had expired. The plaintiff believed that, according to Article 17 of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance, the start time of the time limit for applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury shall be the date when the injury caused by the accident occurs, not the date when the accident occurs as claimed by the defendant. The accident involved in this case occurred in June 2004, but the injury caused by it did not actually occur then. October 3, 2006, when the eye problem of the plaintiff was found out, is the time when the injury caused by the accident occurs, and October 13, 2006, when the scrap iron in his left eye was taken out by the doctor by surgery, is the time when the injury caused by the accident involved in this case was diagnosed and the time when the plaintiff got informed of the fact that his eye injury was caused by the accident involved in this case. Therefore, the time limit for the plaintiff to apply for the ascertainment of work-related injury shall be calculated from October 13, 2006, the time when the injury was diagnosed. In conclusion, the Notice of Dismiss made by the defendant was made against the provisions of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance on the time limit for applying for the ascertainment of work-related injuries. Therefore, the plaintiff requests the court to quash the Notice of Dismiss No.0003 [2007] made by the defendant. 原告杨庆峰诉称:原告于2004年3月进入无锡市市级机关汽车修理所(以下简称汽车修理所)从事汽车修理工作。后汽车修理所改制为第三人无锡市机关汽车修理有限责任公司(以下简称汽车修理公司)。 2004年6月某日,原告与师傅王继聪拆一辆汽车的拉杆球头,用榔头敲打球头时铁屑溅入原告左眼中。当时原告只是感到左眼疼痛,视物有点模糊不清,随即停下手中的工作,但并没有特别在意,汽车修理所也没有及时送原告就医诊治。2006年10月3日,原告左眼突然剧烈疼痛,感到视觉模糊,10月4日左眼即看不到任何东西。原告由父亲陪同到医院诊治,确诊为陈旧性铁锈症,经过手术治疗,虽然病情趋于稳定,但造成左眼永久性失明。而且,根据医生的陈述,从医学的角度看,此类陈旧性铁锈症如果造成一眼失明,则很有可能会进一步感染发展,导致另一眼的失明。原告于 2006年12月21日向无锡市南长区人民法院提起民事诉讼,请求判令第三人汽车修理公司及其上级主管部门赔偿原告因涉案事故受到的损失,并承担后续治疗费用。法院经审理认为原告系因工伤事故受到人身损害,应请求工伤保险赔偿,裁定驳回了原告的起诉。原告遂于2007年4月9日向被告无锡市劳动局提交工伤认定申请。被告于2007年4月11日以原告的工伤认定申请已超过法定的申请时效为由,作出了《不予受理通知书》。原告认为,根据《工伤保险条例》第十七条的规定,工伤认定申请时效的起算时间应为事故伤害发生之日,而不是被告所称的事故发生之日。涉案事故虽然发生在2004年6月,但当时伤害结果并没有实际发生,至2006年10月3日原告眼疾发作时,才是涉案事故伤害发生的时间,2006年10月13日原告在医院手术后取出铁屑之时,才是最终确诊涉案事故伤害的时间,也是原告得知自己所受伤害系由涉案事故所致的时间。因此,原告提出工伤认定申请的时效,应从2006年10月13日医院确诊开始计算。综上,被告作出的《不予受理通知书》违反了《工伤保险条例》关于工伤认定申请时效的规定。请求依法撤销被告作出的[2007]第0003号《不予受理通知书》。
The plaintiff submitted the following evidence: 原告杨庆峰提交以下证据:
1.the Notice of Dismiss No.003 [2007] made by Labor Bureau, which tells the contents of the specific administrative act made by Labor Bureau and sued here by the plaintiff; and 1.被告无锡市劳动局作出的[2007]第 0003号《不予受理通知书》一份,用以证明无锡市劳动局作出的、被诉具体行政行为的内容;
2. a photocopy of the identity card of the plaintiff, which proves the identity of the plaintiff and his qualification for being the litigant of this case. 2.杨庆峰的身份证复印件,用以证明杨庆峰的身份及其诉讼主体资格;
Upon the plaintiff's application, the Nanchang District People's Court took the following evidence from the files of the case No. 2 [2007] of the court: 无锡市南长区人民法院根据原告杨庆峰的申请,调取了该院(2007)南民一初字第2号案件卷宗内的以下证据:
1. the notes of two court trials and the testimonies made by Wang Jicong, Fu Shenglong and Zhou Renliang in court, which tell the specific circumstance of the accident involved in this case; 1.两次庭审笔录以及证人王继聪、傅生龙、周仁良的当庭证言,用以证明涉案事故发生的情况;
2. the receipts on the medical expenses spent by the plaintiff and the discharge record of the plaintiff, which prove the injury caused by the accident involved in this case to this plaintiff, the cause and effect relationship between the injury consequences and the accident involved in this case, and the medical expenses spent by the plaintiff for treating the injury; 2.杨庆峰的医疗费凭证、出院记录,用以证明杨庆峰因涉案事故受到的伤害后果、该伤害后果与涉案事故之间的因果关系,以及杨庆峰为此所支出的医疗费用;
3. the first report of inquisition of Wang Xiangqun, the doctor in charge of the plaintiff's injury, which proves that the injury on the plaintiff's left eye has certain particularity in pathology, that a incubation period is possible depending on which part of the eye gets injured and how does a patient feel about pain, and that there is a positive connection between the accident involved in this case and the injury caused to the plaintiff; 3.无锡市南长区人民法院最初对杨庆峰主治医生王祥群所作的调查笔录,用以证明杨庆峰眼睛所受伤害在病理上的特殊性,以及铁屑溅入眼睛后因受伤部位的不同和病人感觉情况的个体差异,可能导致伤害潜伏期,并证明涉案事故与杨庆峰所受伤害之间存在必然联系;
4. the wages sheet of the plaintiff, which proves that there is a labor relationship between the plaintiff and Vehicle Repair Company; 4.杨庆峰的工资表,用以证明杨庆峰与第三人汽车修理公司存在劳动关系;
5. the material on enterprise restructuring, which proves that Vehicle Repair Company shall be responsible for the accident involved in this case; and 5.企业转制材料,用以证明汽车修理公司应对涉案事故负责;
6. the civil ruling paper No. 2 [2007] of the Nanchang District People's Court, which proves that the plaintiff has brought a civil litigation for the accident involved in this case, which was dismissed by the court according to law. 6.无锡市南长区人民法院(2007)南民一初字第2号民事裁定书,用以证明原告就涉案事故提起民事诉讼,被法院依法裁定驳回。
Labor Bureau argued that: on April 9th, 2007, as an employee of Vehicle Repair Company, the plaintiff submitted an application to the defendant for ascertaining the work-related injury caused by the accident occurred in June 2004 when he was doing the vehicle repairing work. The defendant accepted the application, and, after investigation and taking evidence, found out that the accident occurred in June 2004, but the plaintiff did not apply for ascertaining his work-related injury until April 9, 2007, when the legal time limit for applying for ascertaining work-related injury had expired. Therefore, based on the provisions of Article 17 of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance and Article 12 of the Measures of Jiangsu Province for Implementing the Regulation on the Work-related Injury Insurance, the defendant made a Notice of Dismiss on April 11th, 2007, dismissing the plaintiff's application for ascertaining the work-related injury on the following grounds: 1. under the provision of Article 17 of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance, an injured employee, his linear relative or the trade union may, on the day when the accident causing the injury occurs or within one year from the day when the occupational disease is diagnosed or ascertained, file an application for the ascertainment of work-related injury to the administrative department for labor security in the region subject to overall planning. The accident involved in this case occurred in June 2004, but the plaintiff did not apply to the defendant for the ascertainment of work-related injury until April 9, 2007, when the time limit for applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury has expired. Under the provision of Article 12 of the Measures of Jiangsu Province for Implementing the Regulation on the Work-related Injury Insurance中小学减的负已经加到家长身上了, “where an applicant is not qualified for filing an application or the filed application for work-related injury ascertainment exceeds the prescribed time limit, the administration of labor and security shall not accept the application.” Therefore, it was totally right for the defendant to make the Notice of Dismiss. 2. The plaintiff's understanding about the “day when the injury caused by the accident is occurred” as provided in Article 17 of the Regulation on the Work-related Injury Insurance is wrong. The “day when the accident injury is occurred” means the start date of the time limit for applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury, and the “day” here means the day when the accident and the injury become reason-and-cause related. It has no legal basis to say that October 13, 2006, the day when the injury was finally diagnosed, shall be the day when the injury caused by the accident involved in this case occurred and that the time limit for applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury shall be calculated from that day. No accident, no injury, the accident and the injury are closed related, so the day when the accident occurs shall be the day when the injury caused by the accident occurs. This time is fixed and is not changeable at will. The reason why the Regulation on the Work-related Injury Insurance sets the time limit for applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury lies in restricting the delay of injured employees in applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury at the same time when protecting the legitimate rights and interests of laborers to the largest extent so as to save the administration resources, improve the efficiency in handling affairs and facilitate the labor security departments to timely and accurately verify case facts. In conclusion, with regard to the defendant's specific administrative act of dismissing the plaintiff's application for ascertaining the work-related injury, the facts are clear, the evidence is conclusive, the application of law is right and the procedure is legal. The defendant requests the court to sustain the defendant's specific administrative act according to law and dismiss the plaintiff's claim. 被告无锡市劳动局辩称:2007年4月 9日,原告杨庆峰以第三人汽车修理公司职工的名义,申请被告对其在2004年6月从事汽车修理工作时发生的事故进行工伤认定。被告受理后,经调查取证,查明原告确于2004年6月在工作中发生事故,但原告直至2007年4月9日才提出工伤认定申请,已经超过法定的工伤认定申请时效。故被告根据《工伤保险条例》第十七条和《江苏省实施<工伤保险条例>办法》第十二条的规定,于2007年4月11日作出涉案《不予受理通知书》,决定不予受理杨庆峰提出的工伤认定申请。理由如下:1.根据《工伤保险条例》第十七条的规定,工伤职工或者其直系亲属、工会组织在事故伤害发生之日或者被诊断、鉴定为职业病之日起1年内,可以直接向用人单位所在地统筹地区劳动保障行政部门提出工伤认定申请。涉案事故发生于2004年6月份,原告于2007年4月9日才向被告提出工伤认定申请,早已超过了工伤认定申请时效。根据《江苏省实施<工伤保险条例>办法》第十二条的规定,申请人不具备申请资格的或者提出的工伤认定申请超过规定时效的,劳动保障行政部门不予受理。因此,被告作出的涉案《不予受理通知书》完全正确。2.原告关于《工伤保险条例我反正不洗碗,我可以做饭》第十七条规定的“事故伤害发生之日”的理解是不正确的。这里的“事故伤害发生之日”是针对工伤认定申请时效起算时间的规定,强调的是“日”这一固定的时间点,即事故与伤害有直接因果关系的那一日。原告认为应认定 2006年10月13日最终确诊之日为涉案事故伤害发生之日,并认为其工伤认定申请时效应从该日起开始计算。其诉讼主张并无法律依据。没有事故就没有伤害,事故与伤害密切相关,事故发生之日也就是伤害发生之日,这一时间点应当是固定的,不是随意可以变动的。《工伤保险条例》之所以规定工伤认定申请时效,就是要在最大限度保护劳动者合法权益的同时,对工伤职工怠于申请工伤认定作出一定的限制,以节约行政管理资源,提高办事效率,便于劳动保障部门及时、准确地查明案件事实。综上,被告作出的不予受理杨庆峰工伤认定申请的具体行政行为,事实清楚,证据确凿,适用法律、法规正确,程序合法。请求法院依法维持被告的具体行政行为,驳回原告的诉讼请求。
The defendant submitted the following evidence: 被告无锡市劳动局提交以下证据:
1. the Notice of Dismiss No.0003 [2007] made by the defendant, which proves the contents of the special administrative act committed by the defendant; 1.被告作出的[2007]第0003号《不予受理通知书》,用以证明被告作出的涉案具体行政行为的内容;
2. an Application Form for the Ascertainment of Work-related Injury and the photocopies of the wages sheet, identity card and medical certificate of the plaintiff, which are the materials based on which the defendant examined the plaintiff's application for ascertaining the work-related injury; 2.《工伤认定申请表》、原告杨庆峰的工资表、身份证、医疗证明复印件,用以证明被告审核杨庆峰提出的工伤认定申请所依据的材料;
3. the investigative record of the plaintiff made by the defendant, which proves that the defendant made investigations and formed some material in the process of ascertaining the work-related injury; and 3.被告对原告的调查笔录,用以证明被告在涉案工伤认定程序中进行了调查并形成相关材料;
4. the Notice of Wuxi City on Receiving the Application Materials for the Ascertainment of Employees' Work-related Injury, and the mailing bill of the Notice of Dismiss involved in this case and the return of service thereof, which prove that the procedures followed by the defendant for doing the specific administrative act involved in this case are legal. 4. 《无锡市职工工伤认定申请材料接收单》、涉案《不予受理通知书》交寄邮件清单、送达回执,用以证明被告作出涉案具体行政行为的程序合法。
Vehicle Repair Company stated that it agreed with the defense of Labor Bureau. 第三人汽车修理公司述称:同意被告无锡市劳动局的答辩意见。
Vehicle Repair Company submitted the following evidence: 第三人汽车修理公司提交以下证据:
1. the business license for enterprises as legal persons and the organizational code certificate, which prove the legal personality of the third party; and 1.企业法人营业执照、单位组织机构代码证,用以证明第三人的法人资格;
2. the reply on enterprise restructuring, which proves that the third party was transformed from Vehicle Repair Institute. 2.单位转制批复,用以证明汽车修理所改制为第三人的情况。
The Nanchang District People's Court verified in the first instance that: 无锡市南长区人民法院一审查明:
The plaintiff worked for Vehicle Repair Institute, which was later restructured into Vehicle Repair Company in June 2005, from March 2004. In June 2004, when he was dismantling the pull rod bulb of a vehicle with Wang Jicong, his master, some iron scrap jumped into his left eye when Wang knocked the bulb with a hammer. Then he felt his left eye painful, and it became better after dropping some eye drops, so he did not go to hospital. On October 3rd, 2006, he felt severe pain in the left eye and things became blurry in his left eye, so he went to Wuxi No.2 People's Hospital for diagnosis and treatment on October 5, 2006, and got a surgery in the hospital on October 11 to 13. The diagnosis results are that: 1. the left eye got traumatic cataract; 2. the left eye got ocular siderosis syndrome; and 3. there is a foreign body in the left eyeball. Even after surgery, the eyesight of the plaintiff's left eye is obviously weaker. According to the doctor, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the injury in the plaintiff's left eye and the accident involved in this case. In medical science, it is possible that this kind of injury has a relatively long incubation period. On April 9, 2007, the plaintiff filed an application for the ascertainment of the work-related injury with the defendant, which made the Notice of Dismiss No.003 [2007] on April 11 under the provisions of Article 17 of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance and Article 12 of the Measures of Jiangsu Province for Implementing the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance under the pretext that the time limit for applying for the ascertainment of the work-related injury has expired, and served the Notice upon the plaintiff and Vehicle Repair Company by mail on April 17. The plaintiff refused to accept the result, thus brought an administrative litigation on April 25th, 2007, requesting for quashing the Notice of Dismiss. 原告杨庆峰于2004年3月进入汽车修理所(该单位于2005年6月因改制变更为第三人汽车修理公司)从事汽车修理工作。2004年6月,原告与其师傅王继聪共同拆卸一辆汽车的拉杆球头,王继聪用榔头敲打球头时导致铁屑溅入原告的左眼中。原告当时感觉左眼疼痛,滴了眼药水后疼痛缓解,故未去医院检查。2006年10月 3日,原告感觉左眼剧烈疼痛,视觉模糊,于同年10月5日到无锡市第二人民医院诊疗,同年10月11日至13日经医院手术治疗,诊断为:1.左眼外伤性白内障;2.左眼铁锈沉着综合症;3.左眼球内附异物。虽经治疗,原告的左眼视力明显减弱。医生诊断认为杨庆峰左眼所受伤害与涉案事故存在因果关系,从医学角度看此类事故伤害可以存在较长的潜伏期。2007年4月9日,原告向被告无锡市劳动局提出工伤认定申请,被告根据《工伤保险条例》第十七条和《江苏省实施<工伤保险条例>办法》第十二条的规定,于同年4月11日以原告提出的工伤认定申请已超过规定的申请时效为由,作出了[2007]第0003号《不予受理通知书》,并于同年4月17日邮寄送达给原告和汽车修理公司。原告不服,于2007年 4月25日提起行政诉讼,请求撤销被告作出的涉案《不予受理通知书》。
It is also verified that: on December 21, 2006, for the dispute over the compensation for personal injury, the plaintiff brought a lawsuit against Wuxi Municipal Organs Administration (the superior competent department of Vehicle Repair Company) and Vehicle Repair Company, requesting the two defendants to make compensation for the medical expenses of 10718.29 yuan paid by the plaintiff for treating the injury caused by the accident involved in this case and to pay for the follow-up treatment expenses. Upon trial, the Nanchang District People's Court believed that, under the provisions of Article 12 (1) ofthe Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court of Some Issues concerning the Application of Law for the Trial of Cases on Compensation for Personal Injury and Article 140 (1) (iii) of the Civil Procedural Law of the People's Republic of China, where a labor gets a personal injury in a work-related accident, he shall request compensation from the insurance against injuries at work and he is not allowed to directly bright a civil litigation against the employer. Therefore, the court made the civil ruling paper No.2 [2007] on April 26, 2007, dismissing the lawsuit brought by the plaintiff. 另查明:2006年12月21日,原告杨庆峰以人身损害赔偿纠纷为由起诉无锡市市级机关事务管理局(系第三人汽车修理公司的上级主管部门)、汽车修理公司,要求两被告赔偿原告因涉案事故伤害就医诊疗所支出的医疗费人民币10 718.29元并承担后续治疗费用。案经无锡市南长区人民法院审理,认为根据《最高人民法院关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第十二条第一款、《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百四十条第一款第(三)项之规定,劳动者因工伤事故遭受人身损害的,应当请求工伤保险赔偿,不能直接对用人单位提起民事诉讼,故于2007年4月 26日作出(2007)南民一初字第2号民事裁定书,驳回了原告的起诉。
The focus of this case in the first instance shall be: if the injury consequences do not appear at the time when an accident at work occurs and, after the injury consequences appear, it is diagnosed by the doctor that the injury is caused by the accident, how to determine the start time of the time limit for applying for the ascertainment of the work-related injury. 本案一审的争议焦点是:工伤事故发生时伤害后果尚未发生,伤害后果发生后经医生诊断证明确系工伤事故导致的,应当如何确定工伤认定申请时效的起算时间。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
The Nanchang District People's Court held in the first instance that: 无锡市南长区人民法院一审认为:
Article 17 of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance provides that: “the worker who suffered from the injury or his lineal relative, or the trade union may, within one year as of the day when the accident injury is occurred or when the worker is diagnosed or assessed to have the occupational disease, directly file the application for ascertainment of the work-related injury to the administrative department of labor security of the region subject to overall planning where the employer is located.” Article 12 of the Measures of Jiangsu Province for the Implementation of the Regulation on Word-related Injury Insurance provides that: “Where an applicant is not qualified for applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury or does so by exceeding the prescribed time limit, the administration of labor and security shall not accept the application.” According to the facts of this case, the injury consequences of the accident occurred in June 2004 did not actually appear until October 2006, and it was diagnosed by the doctor that the injury was indeed caused by the accident involved in this case. It was wrong for Labor Bureau to, without taking into consideration the particularity of the accident involved in this case, believe that “the day when the injury caused by the accident occurs” is the “day when the accident occurs” and further determine June 2004, the time when the accident involved in this case occurred, as the start time of the time limit for the plaintiff to apply for the ascertainment of work-related injury. According to the diagnosis results, the injury caused to the plaintiff is clinically called ocular siderosis syndrome, and the syndrome has a certain particularity, which is that the injury consequences do not show immediately after a person gets injured and that there is a relatively long time of incubation period. In this case, the injury consequences did not appear until more than two years later after the accident occurred, before that, the plaintiff did not know that he has gotten injured in the accident involved in this case, certainly it was impossible for it to apply for the ascertainment of work-related injury immediately after the accident occurred. Therefore, it was wrong for the defendant to determine the time when the accident involved in this case occurred as the start time of the time limit for applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury, because doing so is not favorable for protecting the legitimate rights and interests of injured employees. In this case, the start time of the time limit for applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury shall be the time when the injury consequences actually appear. Therefore, the application filed by the plaintiff for the ascertainment of work-related injury did not exceed the prescribed time limit, the Notice of Dismiss made by the defendant is wrong in the application of law, and the plaintiff's claim shall be upheld. 工伤保险条例》第十七条规定:“工伤职工或者其直系亲属、工会组织在事故伤害发生之日或者被诊断、鉴定为职业病之日起1年内,可以直接向用人单位所在地统筹地区劳动保障行政部门提出工伤认定申请。”《江苏省实施<工伤保险条例>办法》第十二条规定:“申请人不具备申请资格的或者提出的工伤认定申请超过规定时效的,劳动保障行政部门不予受理。”根据本案事实,原告杨庆峰于2004年6月在工作中发生事故,至2006年10月事故伤害结果实际发生,经医生诊治认为杨庆峰所受伤害确系涉案工伤事故导致。被告无锡市劳动局认为《工伤保险条例》第十七条规定的“事故伤害发生之日”就是指“事故发生之日”,据此将2004年6月发生涉案工伤事故的时间作为杨庆峰工伤认定申请时效的起算时间,没有考虑涉案工伤事故的特殊性,是错误的。根据医生的诊断证明,杨庆峰所受伤害在临床上称之为铁锈沉着综合症,该症具有一定的特殊性,即受伤后可能暂时不发生伤害后果,伤害后果的发生可以存在较长的潜伏期。本案中,涉案工伤事故发生两年多以后,伤害结果才实际发生,在此之前杨庆峰并不知道自己在涉案工伤事故中受到了伤害,当然也就不可能在涉案工伤事故发生后及时提出工伤认定申请。因此,被告以2004年6月涉案工伤事故发生的时间作为工伤认定申请时效的起算时间是错误的,不利于保护工伤职工的合法权益。本案应以伤害结果实际发生的时间作为工伤认定申请时效的起算时间,杨庆峰提出的工伤认定申请并未超过规定的申请时效,被告作出的涉案《不予受理通知书》适用法律、法规错误,原告的诉讼请求应予以支持。
In conclusion, the Nanchang District People's Court decided on July 19, 2007 that: 1. the Notice of Dismiss No.0003 [2007] made by Labor Bureau on April 11, 2007 shall be quashed; and 2. Labor Bureau shall do a new specific administrative act with regard to the plaintiff's application for the ascertainment of work-related injury within 60 days after this judgment comes into force. The case acceptance fee of 50 yuan shall be paid by Labor Bureau. 综上,无锡市南长区人民法院于2007年7月19日判决:一、撤销被告无锡市劳动局于2007年4月11日作出的[2007]第0003号《不予受理通知书》;二、被告无锡市劳动局在本判决发生法律效力后60日内对原告杨庆峰的工伤认定申请重新作出具体行政行为。案件受理费人民币50元,由被告无锡市劳动局负担。
Labor Bureau refused to accept the first judgment, and appealed to the Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi basically on grounds that: 1. The “day when the injury caused by the accident occurs” as provided in Article 17 爱法律,有未来of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance means the start date of the time limit for applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury, and the “day” here means the day when the accident and the injury become reason-and-cause related. No accident, no injury, the accident and the injury are closed related, so the day when the accident occurs shall be the day when the injury caused by the accident occurs. This time is fixed and is not changeable at will. 2. With regard to the appellant's specific administrative act of dismissing the appellee's application for the ascertainment of work-related injury, the facts are clear, the evidence is conclusive, the application of law is right and the procedure is legal. 3. The interpretation made by the judgment of the first instance on the “day when the injury caused by the accident occurs” provided in Article 17 of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance has no legal basis. In conclusion, the appellant requests the court of the second instance to quash the judgment of the first instance and sustain the Notice of Dismiss No.0003 [2007] made by the appellant on April 11, 2007. 无锡市劳动局不服一审判决,向无锡市中级人民法院提起上诉,主要理由是:1.《工伤保险条例
谨防骗子
》第十七条规定的“事故伤害发生之日”是针对工伤认定申请时效起算时间的规定,强调的是“日”这一固定的时间点,即事故与伤害有直接因果关系的那一日。没有事故就没有伤害,事故与伤害是密切相关的,“事故伤害发生之日”就是指“事故发生之日”,这一时间点应当是固定的,不是随意可以变动的。2.上诉人作出的不予受理被上诉人杨庆峰工伤认定申请的具体行政行为,事实清楚,证据确凿,适用法律、法规正确,程序合法。3.一审判决对于《工伤保险条例》第十七条规定的“事故伤害发生之日”的解释没有法律依据。综上,请求依法撤销一审判决,维持上诉人于 2007年4月11日作出的[2007]第0003号《不予受理通知书》。
Yang Qingfeng, as the appellee, argued that: it is a misconstruction of Article 17 of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance that the appellant believed that the “day when the injury caused by the accident occurs” refers to the “day when the accident occurs.” It is expressly provided in Article 17 of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance that the “day when the injury caused by the accident occurs” is the start date of the time limit for applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury, not the “day when the accident occurs” as claimed by the appellant. The occurrence of injury and the occurrence of accident are obviously two different concepts, because injury does not necessarily occurs at the same time when an accident occurs, and the harm caused to the person does not necessarily show at the time when the accident occurs. In this case, because the injury caused to the appellee by the accident involved in this case has an incubation period and is hard to discover to a certain extent, the injury consequences did not show immediately after the accident occurred. The eye problem did not outbreak until October 3, 2006, and it was not until October 13, 2006 that the appellee knew that he was injured in the accident involved in this case. It is impossible for him to apply for the ascertainment of work-related injury before knowing the injury. Therefore, October 13, 2006 shall be the “day when the injury caused by the accident occurs” and the start date of the time limit for applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury. The appellee requests the court of the second instance to dismiss the appeal of the appellant and sustain the judgment of the first instance. 被上诉人杨庆峰辩称:上诉人无锡市劳动局认为《工伤保险条例》第十七条规定的“事故伤害发生之日”就是指“事故发生之日”,是对该规定的误解。《工伤保险条例》第十七条明确规定“事故伤害发生之日”为工伤认定申请时效的起算时间,而不是上诉人所称的“事故发生之日。”“事故伤害发生”和“事故发生”为两个明显不同的概念,事故发生时并不一定同时发生事故伤害,事故对人的伤害也不一定在事故发生当时就明显表现出来。本案中,被上诉人因涉案工伤事故所受的伤害具有一定的潜伏期和隐蔽性,涉案工伤事故发生当时并未马上出现伤害后果,直至2006年10月3日被上诉人的眼疾才开始发作,2006年10月13日在医院手术后取出铁屑,此时被上诉人才知道自己在涉案工伤事故中受到伤害,才可能提出工伤认定申请。故应当认定该时日为“事故伤害发生之日”,并以之作为工伤认定申请时效的起算时间。请求二审法院驳回上诉人的上诉请求,维持一审判决。
Vehicle Repair Company, the third party in the first instance, stated that it agreed with the appeal grounds stated by Labor Bureau. 一审第三人汽车修理公司述称:同意上诉人无锡市劳动局的上诉意见。
Neither party submitted any new evidence in the second instance. 各方当事人在二审中均未提交新的证据。
In the second instance, the Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi affirmed the facts verified in the first instance and verified the following new facts: 无锡市中级人民法院经二审,确认了一审查明的事实。另查明:
From October 11 to 13, 2006, the appellee went to the No.2 People's Hospital of Wuxi to treat his eye problem, and, by surgery, the doctor took out a scrap iron from the bottom of the left eye of the appellee. The appellee was discharged from hospital on October 26, 2006, the diagnosis results are that: 1. the left eye got traumatic cataract; 2. the left eye got ocular siderosis syndrome; and 3. there is a foreign body in the left eyeball. When the appellee was discharged from hospital, the visual acuity of his left eye was HM 30CM, and there is no improvement after rectification. 2006年10月11日至13日,被上诉人杨庆峰在无锡市第二人民医院接受治疗,该院医生经手术从被上诉人的左眼底部取出一铁屑。2006年10月26日被上诉人出院,医生作出的诊断结论为:1.左眼外伤性白内障;2.左眼铁锈沉着综合症;3.左眼球内附异物。出院时检查被上诉人的左眼视力为手动30CM,矫正无提高。
DISPUTED ISSUES 
The focus of this case in the second instance shall still be: if the injury consequences do not appear at the time when a work-related accident occurs and, after the injury consequences appear, it is diagnosed by the doctor that the injury is caused by the accident, how to determine the start time of the time limit for applying for the ascertainment of the work-related injury. 本案二审的争议焦点仍然是:工伤事故发生时伤害后果尚未发生,伤害后果发生后经医生诊断证明确系工伤事故导致的,应当如何确定工伤认定申请时效的起算时间。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING 
The Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi held in the second instance that: 无锡市中级人民法院二审认为:
The ascertainment of work-related injury is the basis for employees injured at work to enjoy the work-related injury insurance, and the filing of the application for the ascertainment of work-related injury is the first step to initiate the ascertainment procedure. Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance provides that: “the worker who suffered from the injury, or his lineal relative, or the trade union may, within one year as of the day when the accident injury is occurred or when the worker is diagnosed or assessed to have an occupational disease, directly file the application for ascertainment of the work-related injury to the administrative department of labor security of the region subject to overall planning where the employer is located.” This Article specifies the subject to apply for the ascertainment of work-related injury, the time limit for application, the start time of the time limit and the administrative departments accepting the application. In particular, the “day when the injury caused by the accident occurs” provides the start time of the time limit for applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury. Usually, injury comes immediately after the occurrence of accident, and the day when the injury caused by the accident occurs is the day when the accident occurs, so the “day when the injury caused by the accident occurs” has no different meanings. However, there are times that injury does not come immediately after the occurrence of accident, that injury actually occurs after an incubation period, which means that the day when injury occurs is not the day when accident occurs, under such special circumstances, the “day when the injury caused by the accident occurs” shall be interpreted as the day when the injury consequences show and be the start time of the time limit for applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury. 工伤认定是工伤职工享受工伤保险待遇的基础,而提出工伤认定申请是启动工伤认定程序的前提。《工伤保险条例》第十七条第二款规定:“工伤职工或者其直系亲属、工会组织在事故伤害发生之日或者被诊断、鉴定为职业病之日起1年内,可以直接向用人单位所在地统筹地区劳动保障行政部门提出工伤认定申请。”该规定明确了提出工伤认定申请的主体、申请时效及其起算时间,以及受理申请的行政部门。其中的“事故伤害发生之日”,即是关于工伤认定申请时效起算时间的规定。在通常情况下,工伤事故发生后,伤害结果也随即发生,伤害结果发生之日也就是事故发生之日,故对于“事故伤害发生之日”的理解不会产生歧义。但在工伤事故发生后,伤害结果并未马上发生,而是潜伏一段时间后才实际发生,即伤害结果发生之日与事故发生之日不一致的特殊情况下,“事故伤害发生之日”应当理解为伤害结果发生之日,并以之作为工伤认定申请时效的起算时间。
 首先,文义解释是正确理解法律条文的首选方法。《工伤保险条例》第十七条第二款规定的“事故伤害发生之日”,从字面含义上看,“事故”是对于“伤害”的修饰和限制,即这里的“伤害”是基于工伤事故而发生的,伤害结果与工伤事故之间存在因果关系。据此理解,“事故伤害发生之日”就是指伤害结果发生之日,而不是事故发生之日。
First, semantic interpretation is the first way to correctly interpret legal provisions. The “day when the injury caused by the accident occurs” as provided in Article 17 (2) of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance, literally, “accident” is to modify and limit “injury”, which means that the “injury” is caused by the work-related accident and that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the injury consequences and the work-related accident. Based on this interpretation, we can see that the “day when the accident injury occurs” is the day when the injury consequences show, not the day when the accident occurs. 其次,工伤职工或者其直系亲属、工会组织提出工伤认定申请的前提,是工伤事故伤害结果已经实际发生。工伤事故发生后,如果伤害后果尚未发生,上述工伤认定申请主体无法预知是否会产生伤害后果、会产生什么样的伤害后果,也无法预知伤害后果会引发什么样的损失,当然也就无从提出工伤认定申请。因此,正确理解《工伤保险条例》第十七条第二款规定的“事故伤害发生之日”,应当认定“事故伤害发生之日”即为工伤事故伤害结果实际发生之日,而不是工伤事故发生之日。
Second, the precondition for a worker injured at work, his linear relative or trade union to apply for the ascertainment of work-related injury is the actual occurrence of the injury consequences. In case the injury consequences do not appear immediately after the accident occurs, the applicant would have no idea about whether there would be any consequences, what consequences would be and what losses would be caused by the consequences, thus it is impossible to apply for the ascertainment of work-related injury immediately. Therefore, the “day when the injury caused by the accident occurs”, instead of the “day when the accident occurs,” as prescribed in Article 17 (2) of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance, shall be determined as the day when the injury consequences actually occur. 第三,根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》(以下简称民法通则)第一百三十七条的规定,诉讼时效期间从知道或者应当知道权利被侵害时起计算。最高人民法院《关于贯彻执行<中华人民共和国民法通则>若干问题的意见(试行)》第一百六十八条规定:“人身损害赔偿的诉讼时效期间,伤害明显的,从受伤害之日起算;伤害当时未曾发现,后经检查确诊并能证明是由侵害引起的,从伤势确诊之日起算。”工伤认定申请时效虽然与民事诉讼时效不同,但在判断时效起算时间时,应当参照上述关于民事诉讼时效起算时间的规定。劳动保障部门在确定工伤认定申请时效的起算时间时,应当以工伤事故伤害结果实际发生的时间为标准。
Third, according to the provision of Article 137 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, the prescribed period for litigation shall be calculated from the day when the party concerned has or should have knowledge of the infringement upon his/its rights. It is provided in Article 168 of the Opinions on Issues Concerned in Implementing the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China that “For personal injury that is obvious, the prescribed period for litigation for compensation shall be computed from the date when the person suffers from such injury; if the injury is not found then and there, but is diagnosed after examination to be caused by the infringement by proof, the prescribed period for litigation shall be computed from the date when the condition of the injury is diagnosed.” The time limit for applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury is different from the prescribed period for civil litigation, but, when determining the start time, it is necessary to follow by analogy the above-mentioned provision on the start time of the prescribed period for civil litigation. Therefore, where an administrative department of labor and security determines the start time of the time limit for the ascertainment of work-related injury, it shall take the time when the injury consequences actually occur as the start time. 根据本案事实,被上诉人杨庆峰于 2004年6月在工作时发生铁屑溅入左眼的事故,但当时并未实际发生伤害后果,而是直至2006年10月才病情发作,经医生确诊为左眼铁锈沉着综合症。根据医生诊断证明,该病具有潜伏性和隐蔽性,与 2004年6月被上诉人在工作时发生的事故具有因果关系。鉴于涉案工伤事故发生时伤害后果尚未实际发生,伤害结果发生后经医生确诊证明确系因涉案工伤事故所致,故本案工伤认定申请时效应当从伤害后果实际发生之日起算,被上诉人提出涉案工伤认定申请时,尚未超过申请时效。
According to the facts of this case, in June 2004, when the appellee was at work, an iron scrap jumped into his left eye, but the injury consequences did not show until October 2006. The diagnosis result was acute rust syndrome. According to the doctor, the injury may have a certain incubation period, was hard to discover and was cause-and-effect related to the accident occurred in June 2004. Considering that the injury consequences did not show immediately after the accident involved in this case occurred and that it was diagnosed by the doctor that the injury was cause-and-effect related to the accident involved in this case, the time limit for ascertaining the work-related injury of this case shall be calculated from the date when the injury consequences actually occur, and the time when the appellee applied for the ascertainment of work-related injury is still within the prescribed time limit. 上诉人无锡市劳动局认为《工伤保险条例》第十七条第二款关于工伤认定申请时效的规定是为了防止工伤认定申请的提出没有时间上的限制,并因此导致浪费国家行政管理资源,影响办事效率,妨碍劳动保障部门及时、准确地查明事实。上诉人还认为上述规定中的“事故伤害发生之日”应当理解为事故发生之日。其上诉理由不能成立。如果不对提出工伤认定申请作出时效限制,确实可能造成行政管理资源的浪费,影响劳动保障部门的工作效率,也不利于劳动保障部门及时、准确地查明事实。但是,规定工伤认定申请时效,更为重要的是充分保障工伤职工的合法权益。另一方面,如果将事故发生之日作为工伤认定申请时效的起算时间,则劳动保障部门在工伤事故发生后,伤害后果没有马上出现的情况下,也无法及时、准确地查明事实,无法作出正确的处理,反而必将造成行政管理资源的浪费,影响劳动保障部门的工作效率,也不利于工伤职工合法权益的保护。
The appellant believed that the reason why the Regulation on the Work-related Injury Insurance sets the time limit for applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury lies in restricting the delay of injured employees in applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury at the same time when protecting the legitimate rights and interests of laborers to the largest extent so as to save the administration resources, improve the efficiency in handling affairs and facilitate the labor security departments to timely and accurately verify case facts. It still believed that the “day when the injury caused by the accident occurs” shall be the day when the accident occurs. Its appeal reasons shall be not tenable. However, the more important purpose of the setting of the time limit lies in sufficiently safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of workers injured at work. In another development, if the day when an accident occurs is taken as the day when the time limit for applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury, it would be impossible for the administrative department of labor and security to timely and accurately verify the relevant facts and make a right decision to handle the situation if the injury consequences do not show up immediately after the accident at work occurs, which would waste the administration resources, affect the work efficiency of the administrative department of labor and security and is not favorable for protecting the legitimate rights and interests of workers injured at work. 
JUDGMENT 综上,正确理解《工伤保险条例》第十七条第二款的规定,应当认定“事故伤害发生之日”就是指伤害结果实际发生之日。被上诉人杨庆峰提出的工伤认定申请没有超过申请时效。一审判决认定事实清楚,适用法律正确,审判程序合法,应予维持。
In conclusion, if correctly interpreting the provision of Article 17(2) of the Regulation on Work-related Injury, we shall determine that the “day when the injury caused by the accident occurs” is the day when the injury consequences actually occur. The time when the appellee applied for the ascertainment of work-related injury is still within the prescribed time limit for applying for the ascertainment of work-related injury. In the first judgment, the facts verified are clear, the application of law is correct and the procedures are legal, so the first judgment shall be sustained. 据此,无锡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2007年10月12日判决:驳回上诉,维持原判。二审案件受理费人民币50元,由上诉人无锡市劳动局负担。
Therefore, according to the provisions of Article 61 (1) of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi decided on October 12, 2007 that: the appeal shall be dismissed, the original judgment shall be sustained, and the case acceptance fee of the second instance of 50 yuan shall be paid by Wuxi Labor Bureau. 本判决为终审判决。
This decision shall be final. 

 

     
     
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