|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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, “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》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。
．．．．．． |
|
Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【￥800.00】 for your single purchase. | |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户；您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买，支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|