>>>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
 
Wang Changhuai v. Bureau of Labor and Social Security of Xuyi County, Jiangsu Province (dispute over administrative determination of work-related injury)
王长淮诉江苏省盱眙县劳动和社会保障局工伤行政确认案
【法宝引证码】

Wang Changhuai v. Bureau of Labor and Social Security of Xuyi County, Jiangsu Province (dispute over administrative determination of work-related injury)
(dispute over administrative determination of work-related injury)
王长淮诉江苏省盱眙县劳动和社会保障局工伤行政确认案

Wang Changhuai v. Bureau of Labor and Social Security of Xuyi County, Jiangsu Province
(dispute over administrative determination of work-related injury)

 

王长淮诉江苏省盱眙县劳动和社会保障局工伤行政确认案

[Case Summary] [裁判摘要]
Article 14 of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance provides that if an employee is injured in an accident while working at the workplace during working hours, he shall be determined to have suffered a work-related injury. The term “workplace” referred to in this case means the site where the employee performs his work, for instance, a workshop where the employee physically works, rather than the specific working post he undertakes. If the employee is injured in an accident, even if this is due to “post hopping” during working hours, it shall be considered as meeting the conditions for determining work-related injuries, as long as it occurs during working hours, at the workplace and due to performing work. This indicates that “post hopping” or not will not affect the determination of work-related injuries. 根据《工伤保险条例》第十四条小词儿都挺能整的规定,职工在工作时间和工作场所内,因工作原因受到事故伤害的,应当认定为工伤。这里的“工作场所”,是指职工从事工作的场所,例如职工所在的车间,而不是指职工本人具体的工作岗位。职工“串岗”发生安全事故导致伤害的,只要是在工作时间和工作场所内、因工作原因而发生的,即符合上述工伤认定条件,“串岗”与否不影响其工伤认定。
BASIC FACTS 
Plaintiff: Wang Changhuai, male, 46 years old, worker of Jiangsu Sida Medical Technology Co. Ltd, domiciled at Taoyuan Lane, Xucheng Town, Xuyi County, Jiangsu Province. 原告:王长淮。
Defendant: The Bureau of Labor and Social Security of Xuyi County, Jiangsu Province, domiciled at Jinpeng Avenue, Xucheng Town, Xuyi County, Jiangsu Province. 被告:江苏省盱眙县劳动和社会保障局。
Third Party: Jiangsu Sida Medical Technology Co. Ltd., domiciled at Hongwu Avenue, Industrial Park, Xuyi County, Jiangsu Province. 第三人:江苏思达医药科技有限公司。
The Plaintiff, Wang Changhuai, filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Xuyi County, Jiangsu Province, as he objected to the conclusion on work-related injury determination made by the defendant, the Bureau of Labor and Social Security of Xuyi County, Jiangsu Province (hereinafter referred to as the “Bureau of Labor Security of Xuyi County”). Since the Jiangsu Sida Medical Technology Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Sida Company”) had an interest in the specific administrative act in dispute in this case, the court informed the Sida Company to participate in the proceedings as a third party in accordance with Article 27 of Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. 原告王长淮因不服被告江苏省盱眙县劳动和社会保障局(以下简称盱眙县劳保局)工伤认定结论,向江苏省盱眙县人民法院提起诉讼。因本案被诉具体行政行为与江苏思达医药科技有限公司(以下简称思达公司)有利害关系,依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第二十七条的规定,法院通知其作为本案的第三人参加诉讼。
The Plaintiff, Wang Changhuai, alleged that he had been working for the Sida Company since 2007. On May 22, 2008, Xu Jianhua, a workshop director of the Sida Company, when arranging the Plaintiff to do cleaning, informed him that he would follow and learn from Zhang Haijun, a master worker, the next day. During the break, the Plaintiff saw Zhang Haijun preparing materials on a workbench. The Plaintiff wanted to familiarize himself with the situation in advance and thus followed Zhang Haijun to the workbench to watch him work. Due to an equipment malfunction, an alcohol spillage accident occurred at the post of alcohol regeneration resulting in an immediate possibility of an explosion. All the workers present, including the Plaintiff, jumped out of the windows of the site of the accident. The Plaintiff broke both of his feet as a result of the jump. This was diagnosed as bilateral calcaneal fractures by the Chinese Medicine Hospital of Xuyi County. On February 21, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for a determination of work-related injury with the Defendant, the Bureau of Labor Security of Xuyi County. On April 16, 2009, the Defendant determined that it was not a work-related injury on the basis that the Plaintiff was injured while post hopping. The Plaintiff then requested the court to rule that the Defendant should re-conduct the specific administrative act and determine the Plaintiff as having suffered a work-related injury. 原告王长淮诉称:2007年起原告进入思达公司工作。2008年5月22日,公司的车间主任徐建华安排原告打扫卫生时告知原告次日跟随张海军师傅后面工作。休息时,原告看见张海军备料至工作台,想提前熟悉情况,即跟随张海军到工作台旁观看张海军操作。由于设备故障,回收酒精岗位发生酒精溢料事故,随时有爆炸可能,工人均从工作现场窗户跳出。原告在跳落地面时双足摔伤,经盱眙县中医院诊断为双侧跟骨骨折。2009年2月21日原告向被告盱眙县劳保局申请工伤认定。被告于2009年4月16日认定原告受伤事故因串岗而不属于工伤。原告遂请求法院依法判令被告重新作出认定原告为工伤的具体行政行为。
The Plaintiff, Wang Changhuai, provided the following evidence: 原告王长淮提供了以下证据:
1. Decision on Determination of Work-related Injury of Xuyi County (No. 011 [2009]) made by the Defendant, the Bureau of Labor Security of Xuyi County, on April 16, 2009, and Decision of Administrative Reconsideration of the People's Government of Xuyi County (No.4 [2009] ) to prove the existence of the sued specific administrative act; 1.被告盱眙县劳保局于2009年4月 16日作出的盱劳社工伤认字(2009)第011号《盱眙县工伤认定决定书》,盱政行复决字(2009)第4号《盱眙县人民政府行政复议决定书》,证明被诉具体行政行为存在;
2. The discharge records provided by the Chinese Medicine Hospital of Xuyi County as evidence of the fact that the Plaintiff was hospitalized as a result of his injury and subsequently diagnosed as suffering from bilateral calcaneal fractures; 2.盱眙县中医院出院记录,证明原告王长淮受伤住院诊断为双侧跟骨骨折的事实;
3. The statement of the Plaintiff alleging that Xu Jianhua, the workshop director, informed him in the process of his cleaning that he was to follow Zhang Haijun at work the next day; the fact that the Plaintiff saw Zhang Haijun dragging materials to the alcohol regeneration workshop while he and his colleagues were taking a break after they had finished cleaning, and that he then followed Zhang Haijun to the alcohol regeneration workbench where the accident occurred. 3.原告王长淮的陈述,证明其在打扫卫生过程中,车间徐建华主任告知原告次日跟张海军师傅后边做。原告等几人打扫完卫生后在休息时,看张海军拖料来到回收酒精车间,原告跟张海军师傅到回收酒精工作台后发生事故过程的事实;
4. The testimony of He Jiandong, one of the Plaintiff's colleagues from the same cleaning team, to prove that He Jiandong had heard Xu Jianhua telling the Plaintiff Wang Changhuai to follow Zhang Haijun at work the next day; that Wang Changhuai had followed Zhang Haijun to the alcohol regeneration workshop, and the accident occurred afterwards; and that He Jiandong himself was arranged by the Sida Company to take care of Wang Changhuai in the hospital. 4.原告王长淮同班组同事何建东的证词,证明何建东听到徐建华对王长淮说过次日跟张海军后边做,随后王长淮跟张海军去到回收酒精车间,再后发生事故及公司安排其去医院护理王长淮的事实。
The Defendant, the Bureau of Labor Security of Xuyi County, argued that: On the morning of May, 22, 2008, Xu Jianhua, a workshop director, assigned Wang Changhuai to do cleaning, and Zhang Haijun and others operated the equipment at the post of alcohol regeneration; and in the process of cleaning, the Plaintiff left his own post to the alcohol regeneration post without authorization. Around 10 a.m. that day, an equipment malfunction caused an accident involving alcohol spillage at the post of alcohol regeneration. The Plaintiff was at a loss as to how to react and jumped out of the windows in a panic, resulting in bilateral calcaneal fractures, which should not be ascertained as work-related injuries. The Defendant requested the court to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim. 被告盱眙县劳保局辩称:2008年5月 22日上午,公司车间主任徐建华安排原告王长淮打扫卫生,张海军等人在回收酒精岗位操作设备;原告打扫卫生过程中擅自串岗至回收酒精岗位。当日10时左右,由于设备故障,回收酒精岗位发生溢料事故,原告不了解该岗位情况,慌乱中从窗户跳下去,造成其双侧跟骨骨折后果,不属于工伤。请求法院依法驳回原告的诉讼请求。
The Defendant, the Bureau of Labor Security of Xuyi County, provided the following evidence: 被告盱眙县劳保局提供了以下证据:
1. Decision on Determination of Work-related Injury of Xuyi County and the proof of service and Decision of Reconsideration of the People's Government of Xuyi County, as evidence of the application made by Plaintiff Wang Changhuai; the specific administrative act undertaken in accordance with the law by the Defendant, the Bureau of Labor Security of Xuyi County, as well as the result of reconsideration; 1.盱眙县工伤认定决定书及送达回执,盱眙县人民政府复议决定书,证明原告王长淮申请、被告盱眙县劳保局依法作出的具体行政行为及复议结果;
2. The discharge records provided by the Chinese Medicine Hospital of Xuyi County as evidence of the fact that the Plaintiff, Wang Changhuai, was hospitalized for treatment; 2.盱眙县中医院出院记录,证明原告王长淮受伤住院救治事实;
3. The testimony of Xu Jianhua, the workshop director and the testimony of Zhang Haijun, an employee at the workshop, as evidence that the Plaintiff Wang Changhuai left his own post to the alcohol regeneration post without authorization and was injured as a result of the alcohol spillage accident there on that day; 3.车间主任徐建华及车间员工张海军的证词,证明事发当日原告王长淮串岗至回收酒精岗位,因发生溢料事故而受伤的事实;
4. The statement of the Plaintiff Wang Changhuai alleging that on the morning of the accident the director Xu Jianhua had arranged the Plaintiff to follow Zhang Haijun to learn how to operate at the post of alcohol regeneration the next day while the Plaintiff was doing cleaning; and that Wang Changhuai saw Zhang Haijun preparing materials and followed him to the operations room at his opposite and afterwards the accident occurred. 4.原告王长淮的陈述,证明徐建华主任在事发当日上午,安排王长淮打扫卫生过程中,同时安排原告次日跟张海军后面学习回收酒精岗位操作,随后王长淮看到张海军备料,跟其上了对面的操作间,之后发生事故的事实。
The entrusted agent of the Third Party, the Sida Company, held that: the determination decision on work-related injury issued by the Defendant, the Bureau of Labor Security of Xuyi County, was based upon facts and law. The workplace of the Plaintiff Wang Changhuai was workshop No. 1 and he should be engaged in cleaning work there. However, during the occurrence of the accident, the Plaintiff was in another workshop reading a newspaper, which revealed that he was not at his own workplace and he was in another workshop not for work-related reasons. The Third Party, therefore, pleaded that the Plaintiff's claim be dismissed. 第三人思达公司委托代理人认为:被告盱眙县劳保局作出的工伤认定符合事实和法律依据,原告王长淮的工作场所是一车间,应从事打扫卫生工作,而事故发生时,原告在另一车间看报纸,不是基本的工作场所,也不是因工作原因,请求驳回原告的诉讼请求。
The Third Party, the Sida Company, provided the following evidence: 第三人思达公司提供了以下证据:
1. Decision on Determination of Work-related Injury of Xuyi County to prove the specific administrative act undertaken by the Bureau of Labor Security of Xuyi County. 1.盱眙县工伤认定决定书,证明被告盱眙县劳保局作出的具体行政行为。
2. The testimony of Xu Jianhua, a workshop director, and the testimony of Zhang Haijun, an employee at the workshop, proving that the Plaintiff Wang Changhuai left his own post to the post of alcohol regeneration without authorization and was injured as a result of the alcohol spillage accident there that day. 2.公司车间主任徐建华、员工张海军的证词,证明事故发生当日原告王长淮串岗至回收酒精岗位,发生酒精溢料事故后受伤的事实经过。
3. Its business license for enterprises as legal persons to prove that the Third Party, the Sida Company, was established according to law. 3.企业法人营业执照,以证明第三人思达公司依法设立。
The People's Court of Xuyi County organized cross-examination of the evidence: 盱眙县人民法院依法组织了质证:
Regarding the evidence submitted by the Defendant, the Bureau of Labor Security of Xuyi County: Both parties and the Third Party did not object to the authenticity of evidence 1 and 2 provided by the Defendant to prove that the Plaintiff Wang Changhuai was injured and treated, the fact regarding the determination of work-related injury, and the course of application for reconsideration, and the court accepted the two items of evidence as admissible evidence accordingly. With respect to evidence 3 and 4 provided by the Defendant to prove that the Plaintiff left to another post at work without authorization and was involved in acts unrelated to his own post, the Plaintiff argued that it was a fact that Xu Jianhua arranged him to do cleaning, but Xu Jianhua also gave verbal orders for him to follow Zhang Haijun at work in the alcohol regeneration workshop the next day. The Plaintiff challenged the authenticity of Zhang Haijun's testimony. The court confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff was assigned by director Xu Jianhua to do cleaning on the day in question. 关于被告盱眙县劳保局提交的证据。被告提供的证据1-2,证明原告王长淮受伤救治经过、工伤认定事实,申请复议经过,诉辩双方及第三人对证据的真实性均不表异议,法院予以确认。被告提供的证据 3-4以证明原告擅自到其他岗位从事与其本人职务无关的行为,原告质证认为,徐建华安排打扫卫生是事实,但徐建华还口头安排原告第二天跟随张海军干回收酒精车间的工作。原告对张海军证词认为不属实。法院对原告当日受徐建华主任安排打扫卫生事实予以确认。
Regarding the evidence provided by the Plaintiff: The court confirmed evidence 1 and 2 provided by the Plaintiff, since the two items of evidence match evidence 1 and evidence 2 provided by the Defendant. With respect to evidence 3 provided by the Plaintiff, the Defendant considered that there was also the testimony of the witness, He Jiandong, which stated that the Plaintiff had left his own post. The Third Party, the Sida Company, argued that it was impossible for He Jiandong to have heard what Xu Jianhua arranged the Plaintiff to do. On the day of the accident, the Plaintiff should have been doing cleaning work but he left his own post and went to the workplace of Zhang Haijun, which constituted post-hopping. The court held that the testimony of He Jiandong provided by the Plaintiff proved that He Jiandong had heard Xu Jianhua arranging Wang Changhuai to follow Zhang Haijun the next day to perform work, namely the work of alcohol regeneration. The Plaintiff made the same statement when the Defendant investigated the issue. Upon a comprehensive analysis of the evidence stated above, the court can confirm that the director Xu Jianhua had arranged the Plaintiff, when he was doing cleaning, to follow Zhang Haijun at work the next day. 关于原告王长淮举证的部分。原告举证的证据1-2,与被告盱眙县劳保局举证的证据1-2相吻合,予以确认。原告举证的证据3,被告认为,被告提交法庭的证据材料中也有证人何建东的证言,证明当日原告过去是串岗。第三人思达公司认为,何建东不可能听到徐建华安排王长淮工作,事发当日,原告应该打扫卫生,原告到张海军岗位属于串岗。法院认为,原告举证的何建东证词,其证实听到徐建华安排王长淮第二天跟张海军后边干即指回收酒精工作。原告在被告调查时也曾陈述相同内容。综合上述证据分析,原告在打扫卫生过程中,徐建华主任安排原告第二天去跟张海军后边干这一事实,能够予以确认。
The relevance, legitimacy and authenticity of evidence 1 and 2 provided by the Third Party, the Sida Company, and evidence 1 and 3 provided by the Defendant, were confirmed when the Defendant was providing evidence. The court accepted evidence 3 provided by the Third Party as admissible evidence. 第三人思达公司举证的证据1-2,同被告盱眙县劳保局举证的证据1、3,其关联性、合法性、真实性在被告举证时已认证。第三人举证的证据3,法院予以确认。
The People's Court of Xuyi County finds at the first instance that: 盱眙县人民法院一审查明:
The Plaintiff Wang Changhuai started working for Sida Company, the Third Party, in 2007 and had an established labor relationship with the Third Party. On the morning of May 22, 2008, Xu Jiahua, a workshop director arranged the Plaintiff to do cleaning. While the Plaintiff was in the process of cleaning, Xu Jianhua also arranged the Plaintiff Wang Changhuai to follow Zhang Haijun at work the next day. When Zhang Haijun was preparing materials at the alcohol regeneration workshop, the Plaintiff followed him to the workshop to watch and learn so that he may be well prepared for the post the next day. Unfortunately, he encountered the alcohol spillage accident at the post of alcohol regeneration and, in an effort to avoid the danger, the Plaintiff jumped out of the window and broke both of his feet. The director of the workshop and others around immediately sent the Plaintiff to the Chinese Medicine Hospital of Xuyi for treatment. He was diagnosed by the hospital as having bilateral calcaneal fractures. The Sida Company paid for the medical expenses. On February 21, 2009, the Plaintiff applied for a determination of work-related injury to the Defendant, the Bureau of Labor Security of Xuyi County. The Defendant accepted the application and registered the case for further investigation. On April 16, 2009, the Defendant made the Decision on Determination of Work-related Injury (No.11 [2009]), determining that the Plaintiff's injury was not work-related. The Plaintiff disagreed with the decision and applied for reconsideration to the People's Government of Xuyi County on May 10, 2009. On June 8, 2009, the People's Government of Xuyi County made a reconsideration decision that maintained the specific administrative act undertaken by the Defendant. 原告王长淮自2007年进入第三人思达公司工作,与第三人之间形成劳动关系。 2008年5月22日上午,公司车间主任徐建华安排原告打扫卫生。原告在打扫卫生过程中,徐建华亦安排原告王长淮次日跟张海军后边工作,当张海军备料到回收酒精车间时,原告跟其到回收酒精车间观看学习便于次日跟岗。恰遇回收酒精岗位发生酒精溢料事故,原告为避险,慌乱中从窗户跳出,摔伤双足,公司车间主任等人迅速将原告送往盱眙县中医院救治。经医院诊断为双侧跟骨骨折。公司支付了医药费。 2009年2月21日,原告向被告盱眙县劳保局提出工伤认定申请,被告受理后进行立案调查,于2009年4月16日作出盱劳社工伤认字(2009)第011号工伤认定决定,认定原告不属于工伤。原告不服,于 2009年5月10日向盱眙县人民政府申请复议,2009年6月8日盱眙县人民政府作出复议决定,维持被告作出的具体行政行为。
DISPUTED ISSUES 
The issue in this case is whether the Plaintiff Wang Changhuai, who was injured as a result of an accident due to post hopping, could be determined as suffering from a work-related injury. 本案的争议焦点是:原告王长淮在换岗时因事故受伤能否认定为工伤。
In the trial of first instance, the People's Court of Xuyi County holds that: 盱眙县人民法院一审认为:
Article 5 of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance果然是京城土著 issued by the State Council of the People's Republic of China provides that: “The administrative department of labor security of each local people's government at or above the county level shall be in charge of work-related injury insurance work within its jurisdiction.” Therefore, the defendant, the Bureau of Labor Security of Xuyi County has the legal function of determining work-related injuries. Article 14 provides that: “An Employee shall be determined as having a work-related injury if:(a) he is injured in an accident during working hours and in the workplace due to his work....” The “workplace” means the site where the employee performs his work, for instance, a workshop where the employee physically works rather than the specific working post he occupies. The Defendant, the Bureau of Labor Security of Xuyi County, considered that the Plaintiff's injury cannot be determined as a work-related injury as he was injured due to “post hopping.” The court holds that, first of all, the Plaintiff Wang Changhuai temporarily left his post under assignment of the managing staff, the workshop director, and not by his volition, and therefore did not commit “post hopping” and shall instead be considered as an ordinary change of work circumstances; secondly, even if the Plaintiff's act is established as “post hopping” during working hours, it will simply violate the relevant enterprise management rules, which only leads to a change in the specific work post and the relevant work to be done and does not change the fact that the plaintiff was still within the workplace. Therefore, the act of “post hopping” shall be regulated by the internal management rules and cannot affect the determination of work-related injury. The Plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the accident due to equipment malfunction at his workplace while he was working for the Third Party, the Sida Company, which meets the conditions for the determination of work-related injuries. The specific administrative act undertaken by the Defendant denying the Plaintiff's injury as a work-related injury is contrary to law. 中华人民共和国国务院《工伤保险条例不能给市场做人工呼吸》第五条规定:“县级以上地方各级人民政府劳动保障行政部门负责本行政区域内的工伤保险工作”,被告盱眙县劳保局具有负责工伤认定的法定职责。该《条例》第十四条规定:“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……”这里的“工作场所”,是指职工从事工作的场所,例如职工所在的车间,而不是指职工本人具体的工作岗位。被告盱眙县劳保局认为原告因“串岗”受伤不能认定为工伤,对此法院认为,首先,原告王长淮临时更换岗位是按照管理人员即车间主任的安排进行的,并不是擅自离岗换岗,不属于“串岗”,应为正常工作变动;其次,即使认定原告上班期间“串岗”行为成立,原告仅是违反了相关企业管理制度,其只导致具体工作岗位及相关工作内容有所变动,并不能改变原告仍在工作场所内工作的事实,因此“串岗”行为应由企业内部管理规章制度调整,不能因此影响工伤认定。原告是在第三人思达公司上班期间处于工作场所并因该公司设备故障安全事故导致伤害,符合工伤认定条件,被告作出原告不属于工伤的具体行政行为与法律相悖。
JUDGMENT 
JUDGMENT 
In summary, the specific administrative act undertaken by the Bureau of Labor Security of Xuyi County denying the Plaintiff's injury as a work-related injury shall be annulled on the grounds of inadequate evidence and inaccurate application of laws or regulations. The Plaintiff's claim shall be supported. The People's Court of Xuyi County renders the following judgment in accordance with Article 54 (b) 1 and 54 (b) 2 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China on July 29, 2009: 综上,被告盱眙县劳保局作出的认定原告王长淮不属于工伤的具体行政行为证据不足,适用法律法规错误,依法应予撤销。对原告的诉讼请求,应予支持。盱眙县人民法院依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第五十四条第(二)项第1、2目的规定,于2009年7月29日判决:
1. The Decision on Determination of Work-related Injury of Xuyi County (No. 11 [2009]) made by the Defendant, the Bureau of Labor Security of Xuyi County shall be annulled. 一、撤销被告盱眙县劳保局作出的盱劳社工伤认字(2009)第011号工伤认定决定书。
2. The Defendant, the Bureau of Labor Security of Xuyi County, shall re-conduct the specific administrative act and determine the Plaintiff's injury as a work-related injury within 60 days. 二、责令被告盱眙县劳保局在六十日内重新作出认定原告王长淮为工伤的具体行政行为。
The Defendant, the Bureau of Labor Security of Xuyi County, shall bear the litigation costs of 100 yuan. 本案诉讼费用100元,由被告盱眙县劳保局负担。
After the judgment is pronounced, both parties did not file an appeal within the statutory term, the judgment rendered by the court of first instance has become legally effective. 一审宣判后,法定期间内双方当事人均未上诉,一审判决已发生法律效力。
fnl_416393

 

     
     
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