Suzuo (Wuxi) Electric Appliances Co., Ltd. v. Bureau of Labor and Security of Wuxi City
(Case about the Administrative Dispute over Ascertainment of Work-related Injury)@#

[Judgment Abstract]@#
1. Where a work-relatedinjury assessment was overruled by a people's court before the implementationof the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance, the new work-related injuryassessment procedure started after the implementation of the Regulation shallfollow the provisions in the Regulation.@#
2. UnderArticle 8 of the Measures for the Work-Related Injuries Assessment, investigationand verification procedure for work-related injury assessment may be conductedby labor and social security administrative authorities as needed. Therefore, investigationand verification is not a required step for every work-related injuryassessment procedure.  Where the labor andsocial security authorities had collected evidences relating to the employee'sinjury as result of an accident in a concluded work-related injury assessment procedure,investigation and verification is not required in the new assessment procedure.@#
3. The people's court's mission in theadministrative litigation is to examine the lawfulness of a specificadministrative act challenged.  Only whena people's court knows the facts and evidences based on which the specificadministrative act is made, can the court make accurate evaluation on whetherthe specific administrative act is lawful or not. @#
BASIC FACTS@#

Plaintiff: Suzuo (Wuxi) Electric Appliances Co., Ltd., domiciled at Lingjiang Road in Jingsu Wuxi National Hi-tech Industrial Development Zone.@#
Legal Representative: Suzuki Nobuo, chairman of the board of directors of this company.@#
Defendant: Bureau of Labor and Security of Wuxi City, domiciled at New Nanyuan Village, Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province.@#
Legal Representative: Qian Zongjian, director of this bureau.@#
Third Party: Guo Weijun, male, 36 years old, resident of Jinlin City in Jilin Province, and resided at New Fenglei Village, Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
Suzuo (Wuxi) Electric Appliances Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Suzuo Company) filed an administrative lawsuit with the Nanchang People's Court of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, for the reason that it was dissatisfied with the No. 0491 [2005] Decision on Ascertainment of Work-related Injury (hereinafter referred to the No. 0491 Decision) made by the Bureau of Labor and Security of Wuxi City (hereinafter referred to as Wuxi Labor Bureau) on April 30, 2005. The Nanchang People's Court deemed that Guo Weijun (Guo) had a legal interest with the specific administrative act under action and thus notified him to attend the action as the third party.@#
Suzuo Company complained that: During office time in the afternoon of February 14, Guo, a former employee of Suzuo Company, was going before the bulletin board inside the company's gate without permission. Suddenly he felt extremely weak and fell to the ground after several steps backwards, and thus suffered from a brain injury. As for Guo's injury, Wuxi Labor Bureau had decided for two times that it was not a work-related injury, and the People's Government of Wuxi City maintained the aforesaid decision upon reconsideration. However, the Nanchang People's Court overruled the aforesaid two decisions and ordered Wuxi Labor Bureau to make a new ascertainment of work-related injury for the reasons that the facts were not clarified, the evidence was weak and the laws were not correctly applied. The Wuxi Intermediate People's Court maintained the judgment of the first instance of the Nanchang People's Court by the No. 2 [2005] Administrative Judgment for the Second Instance (hereinafter referred to as the No. 2 [2005] Judgment). On April 30, 2005, Wuxi Labor Bureau made the No. 0491 Decision. The No. 0491 Decision quoted the No. 2 [2005] Judgment that “there was no evidence proving that Guo Weijun fell to the ground and got injured during regular office hours, instead he went to the work place of the company due to any matter irrelevant to regular production or work” as the basis, and affirmed that Guo's injury was work-related. After Suzuo Company applied for administrative reconsideration, the People's Government of Wuxi City maintained the No. 0491 Decision. Guo left his post and carried out something else without so directed, went before the bulletin board without permission, suddenly fell to the ground, and got injured, so his injury was not affected by any external force or unsafe factor. According to Article 7 (1) the Provisions of Jiangsu Province on Work-related Injury Insurance for Urban Enterprise Employees (hereinafter referred to as the Provisions of Jiangsu Province on Work-related Injury Insurance), Guo's injury could not constitute a work-related injury. In the process of ascertaining work-related injury for the first two times, Wuxi Labor Bureau could lawfully investigate and obtain the evidence, and all evidence proved that Guo's injury was irrelevant to the work, therefore, Wuxi Labor Bureau made the decision that it did not constitute a work-related injury. Guo got injured before the implementation of the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance, the present ascertainment of work-related injury is just an extension of the previous two, and this case should not be governed by the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance. In the present ascertainment of work-related injury, Wuxi Labor Bureau did not carry out any investigation, and just made the decision according to the court judgment, which was a wrong application of law. As a reconsideration organ, the People's Government of Wuxi City first maintained the decision of no work-related injury upon reconsideration, and then maintained a decision of constituting work-related injury upon reconsideration, however, these two decisions were about the same legal facts. Such administrative reconsiderations conflicting with each other could not exert the function of correcting wrong administrative acts at all. The No. 0491 Decision made by Wuxi Labor Bureau was clearly wrong, and Suzuo Company pleaded the court to cancel the No. 0491 Decision.@#
．．．．．．

铃王公司诉无锡市劳动局工伤认定决定行政纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
一、在《工伤保险条例》施行前作出的工伤认定被人民法院判决撤销后，又在《工伤保险条例》施行后重新启动的工伤认定程序，应当执行《工伤保险条例》的规定。@#

二、《工伤认定办法》第八条规定，工伤认定程序中的调查核实，可以由劳动保障行政部门根据需要进行。故调查核实不是每个工伤认定程序中必经的程序。在已经终结的工伤认定程序中，劳动保障行政部门如果已经掌握了有关职工受事故伤害的证据，在重新启动的工伤认定程序中可以不再进行调查核实。@#
三、人民法院在行政诉讼中的任务，是审查被诉具体行政行为的合法性。人民法院只有了解被诉具体行政行为据以作出的事实和证据，才可能对被诉具体行政行为是否具有合法性作出正确评价。@#
@#
原告：铃王(无锡)电器有限公司，住所地：江苏省无锡国家高新技术产业开发区灵江路。@#
法定代表人：铃木信雄，该公司董事长。@#
被告：无锡市劳动和社会保障局，住所地：江苏省无锡市南苑新村。@#
法定代表人：钱宗建，该局局长。@#
第三人：郭维军，男，36岁，吉林省吉林市人，住址：江苏省无锡市风雷新村。@#
@#
原告铃王(无锡)电器有限公司(以下简称铃王公司)因不服被告无锡市劳动和社会保障局(以下简称无锡市劳动局)于 2005年4月30日作出的锡劳工伤认 [2005]第0491号《工伤认定决定书》(以下简称0491号工伤认定书)，向江苏省无锡市南长区人民法院提起行政诉讼。无锡市南长区人民法院认为郭维军与本案被诉具体行政行为有法律上的利害关系，通知其为本案第三人参加诉讼。@#
原告铃王公司诉称：2000年2月14日上午，本公司原职工郭维军在上班期间，一个人擅自走到公司大门口内公告栏前，突然体力不支，后退几步摔倒在地，造成脑部损伤。对郭维军所受伤害，被告曾两次认定不构成工伤，无锡市人民政府经复议也维持不认定工伤的决定。但是这两次不认定工伤的决定，均被无锡市南长区人民法院以事实不清、证据不足、适用法律错误为由撤销，判决被告重新作出工伤认定。无锡市中级人民法院还以(2005)锡行终字第2号行政判决书(以下简称2号终审判决书)维持了南长区人民法院的一审判决。2005年4月30日，被告作出0491号工伤认定书。该认定书引2号终审判决书中“没有证据证明在单位日常的工作时间和工作的区域内，郭维军因从事与日常生产、工作无关的事务而跌倒致伤”一语作为依据，认定郭维军受到的伤害为工伤。本公司申请行政复议后，无锡市人民政府也复议维持了 0491号工伤认定书。郭维军是在没有任何人指派其离开工作岗位从事其他事情时，擅自走到公司公告栏前突然摔倒致伤，其受伤不存在任何外力或者不安全因素的影响。根据《江苏省城镇企业职工工伤保险规定》(以下简称省工伤保险规定)第七条第 (一)项，郭维军的受伤根本不构成工伤。在前两次工伤认定程序中，被告能依法调查取证，所取证据也都证明了郭维军的受伤与其工作无关，因此作出不认定工伤的决定。郭维军受伤一事发生在《工伤保险条例》施行前，本次工伤认定程序只是前两次认定程序的延续，《工伤保险条例》不能对本案适用。在本次工伤认定程序中，被告不进行调查，只是依据法院判决就作出认定工伤的决定，是适用法律错误。作为复议机关，无锡市人民政府先是复议维持一个不认定工伤的决定，后又复议维持一个认定工伤的决定，而前后两个决定指向的都是同一个法律事实。这样出尔反尔的行政复议，根本不能发挥纠正不正确行政行为的作用。被告作出的0491号工伤认定书明显错误，请求判令撤销。@#
原告铃王公司提交以下证据：@#
1．0491号工伤认定书、行政复议决定书，用以证明被诉具体行政行为客观存在；@#
2．铃王公司整理的无锡市劳动局医保处处长王进与铃王公司管理部负责人朱洁的《电话录音》，2002年12月25日至2003年 1月22日期间无锡市劳动局调查吴宏、朱小洁、沈振字、姚志刚、陆毅、魏伯伦、戴英、韦菁等人后所作的调查笔录，以及吴宏书写的《事故发生经过》，用以证明郭维军是在没有任何人指派其离开工作岗位从事其他事情的情况下，擅自走到公司公告栏前，在无任何外力影响和不安全因素的情况下突然摔倒致伤；@#
3．铃王公司向《中国社会保障》杂志的咨询稿、该杂志主持人的两份答复及2001年第3期该杂志刊登的《他的摔伤不能算因工》一文，用以证明不认定工伤的观点受到舆论界支持。@#
被告无锡市劳动局辩称：一、第三人郭维军受伤一事发生于2000年2月14日。其后在郭维军与原告铃王公司发生的劳动争议中，本局受无锡市新区劳动争议仲裁委员会(以下简称新区仲裁委)的委托，对郭维军受伤一事进行工伤认定。当时的省工伤保险规定第七条第一项规定，职工只有从事本单位日常生产、工作或者本单位负责人临时指定的工作，在紧急情况下，虽未经本单位负责人指定但从事直接关系本单位重大利益的工作负伤、致残或者死亡的，才能认定工伤。经调查，无法认定郭维军是在从事本单位日常生产、工作时受伤，因此本局先后于2002年4月5日和2003年1月22日，两次作出不认定工伤的决定，但是这两次决定均已被法院判决撤销。二、在此期间，《工伤保险条例》施行。与以往的工伤保险文件比，该条例在工伤认定方面有很大变动，其中第十九条第二款规定：“职工或者其直系亲属认为是工伤，用人单位不认为是工伤的，由用人单位承担举证责任。”为落实《工伤保险条例》，江苏省劳动和社会保障厅于2005年3月10日发出《关于实施＜工伤保险条例＞若干问题的处理意见》，其中第十九条规定：“《条例》实施前已受到事故伤害或者患职业病的职工，自2005年4月1日起申请工伤认定的，适用法律时坚持实体从旧、程序从新的原则。”三、本局2005年4月30日作出 0491号工伤认定书时，本着实体从旧、程序从新的原则，重新对过去两次调查形成的材料进行审查后发现，尽管不改变工伤认定的实体标准，但过去的调查材料只反映了郭维军是在日常工作时间、工作区域内受伤，不能证明郭维军是因何事受伤。如果按照《工伤保险条例》第十九条第二款规定的程序，作为用人单位的原告就有责任举证证明郭维军所受伤害不是工伤。但原告所举的一切证据，只能证明郭维军不知何故跌倒致伤，不能证明其是因从事了与日常生产、工作无关的事务而受伤。据此，根据《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》(以下简称行政诉讼法)第五十五条关于“人民法院判决被告重新作出具体行政行为的，被告不得以同一的事实和理由作出与原具体行政行为基本相同的具体行政行为”的规定，本局作出0491号工伤认定书，认定郭维军所受伤害是工伤。四、本局接到2号终审判决书，在重新开始认定工伤的程序后，按照《工伤保险条例》的规定，曾向原告发出过举证通知。原告接到举证通知，只在举证期限过后向本局递交了其对郭维军受伤原因提出的异议，以及一些与过去证明材料内容基本相同的材料。据此，本局根据以往的调查材料，依法作出0491号工伤认定书。0491号工伤认定书是事实清楚、证据确凿、适用法律正确、程序合法的具体行政行为，法院应当维持。@#
．．．．．．