He Wenliang v. Wuhou District Labor Bureau of Chengdu City
(Case of Administrative Act of Determination of Work-related Injuries)@#

@#

@#
BASIC FACTS@#

Plaintiff: He Wenliang, Male, 70 years of age, Farmer, Living at Wu Long Township of Yanting County, Sichuan province@#
Defendant: Wuhou District Labor and Social Security Bureau of Chengdu, Sichuan@#
Legal Representative: Chen Changhua, Director General of the Bureau.@#
The Third Party: Chengdu Sitong Printed Circuit Boards Factory. Address: Cuqiao Township of Wuhou District of Chengdu City, Sichuan.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
On October 23, 2002, Wuhou District Labor and Social Security Bureau of Chengdu City (hereinafter referred to as Wuhou District Labor Bureau) determined by the Letter of Determination on the Nature of Death and Injury of Enterprise Employees (Letter No. 23 [2002] of Wuhou District Labor Bureau) that the nature of the death and injury of He Wenliang's son, He Longzhang, was not work-related injury. He Wenliang was not satisfied with the determination, and applied to Chengdu Labor Bureau for reconsideration. Chengdu Labor Bureau affirmed the determination of Wuhou District Labor Bureau on the nature of He Longzhang's death and injury by the Letter of Administrative Reconsideration Decision (Administrative Reconsideration Decision No.12 [2002] of Chengdu Labor and Social Security Bureau) made on December 11, 2002. He Wenliang was not satisfied with the administrative reconsideration decision of Wuhou District Labor Bureau, either, and brought an administrative lawsuit to Wuhou District People's Court of Chengdu, Sichuan Province on January 9, 2003.@#
The plaintiff claimed that: He Longzhang was a worker in Chengdu Sitong Printed Circuit Boards Factory (hereinafter referred to as the Factory) before he died. In the afternoon of September 24, 2002, he was discovered falling on the ground and losing consciousness in the toilet near his workshop during working hours, and died after being sent to hospital and made emergency treatment without effect. The reasons for his death were severe craniocerebral injury and respiratory failure. Since the Factory did not pay the treatment fees and other relevant fees in full amount and in a timely manner, nor did it apply for determination of the nature of his death and injury, I applied to Wuhou District Labor Bureau for determination of the nature of He Longzhang's death and injury on October 8, 2002. Wuhou District Labor Bureau had no clear facts in determining that He Longzhang had no work-related injury, and evaded the facts that the toilet of the Factory was damp and had serious hidden trouble of safety. The craniocerebral injury of the deceased was obviously resulted from his falling down due to the turbid water in the toilet, and related to his work, so I requested for revoking the determination of the defendant on the nature of He Longzhang's death and injury.@#
．．．．．．

何文良诉成都市武侯区劳动局工伤认定行政行为案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
根据劳动法第三条的规定，认定劳动者工作时间在工作场所的卫生设施内发生伤亡与工作无关，属适用法律错误。@#
@#
原告：何文良，男，70岁，农民，住四川省盐亭县五龙乡。@#
被告：四川省成都市武侯区劳动和社会保障局。@#
法定代表人：陈昌华，该局局长。@#
第三人：成都四通印制电路板厂。住所地：四川省成都市武侯区簇桥乡。@#
@#
成都市武侯区劳动和社会保障局(以下简称武侯区劳动局)。于2002年10月23日以成武劳函[2002]23号《企业职工伤亡性质认定书》认定何文良之子何龙章的伤亡性质不是工伤。何文良不服，向成都市劳动局申请复议，成都市劳动局于2002年12月11日作出成劳社行复决[2002]12号《行政复议决定书》，维持武侯区劳动局对何龙章伤亡性质认定。何文良仍不服武侯区劳动局的行政复议决定，于2003年1月9日向四川省成都市武侯区人民法院提起行政诉讼。@#
原告诉称：何龙章生前系成都四通印制电路板厂工人。2002年9月24日下午的上班期间，何龙章被发现摔倒在车间旁的厕所内不省人事，经送往医院急救无效死亡。死亡原因为重型颅脑损伤，呼吸循环衰竭。因厂方未及时足额支付治疗费及其他相关费用，也未提起伤亡性质认定，我于2002年10月8日向武侯区劳动局申请对何龙章伤亡性质认定，武侯区劳动局认定何龙章不是工伤所依据的事实不清，回避了厂方的厕所潮湿，有重大安全隐患的事实。死者明显是被厕所内的积水滑倒而致颅脑损伤，且应与工作有关，请求撤销被告对何龙章作出的伤亡性质认定。@#
原告提供的主要证据有：@#
1．何文良与何龙章的关系证明，用以证明提起行政诉讼的主体资格。@#
2．成都四通印制电路板厂厕所的照片，用以证明该厕所有积水、湿滑，具有不安全因素。@#
3．何龙章摔倒时被积水浸湿的衣服，用以证明何龙章的摔倒为厕所湿滑所致。@#
被告辩称：我局受理原告申请后，即派人到成都四通印制电路板厂进行了调查，因为何龙章是上班铃声响后未进车间而先到厕所小便，在厕所里不慎摔伤，经送往医院抢救无效后死亡。故认定何龙章上厕所与从事的本职工作无关，不属于工伤。原告称厕所存在不安全隐患，没有证据证实。@#
被告提供的主要证据有：@#
1．《工伤认定申请书》，用以证明成都市武侯区劳动局是根据何文良的申请对何龙章伤亡性质予以认定的。@#
2．成武劳函[2002]23号《企业职工伤亡性质认定书》，用以证明成都市武侯区劳动局对何龙章伤亡性质的认定结论和理由。@#
3．成劳社行复决[2002]12号《行政复议决定书》，用以证明成都市劳动局对何龙章伤亡性质认定的复议结论和理由。@#
4．《居民死亡医学证明书》，用以证明何龙章的死亡时间为2002年9月28日，原因为“重型颅脑损伤致呼吸循环衰竭致死”。@#
5．《何龙章事故调查报告》，用以证明成都市武侯区劳动局在对何龙章伤亡性质认定前，派人到簇桥乡高碑村村委会和四通印制电路板厂调查何龙章伤亡致死的原因及有关情况。@#
6．张策、黄泽刚、骆志强的证人证言，用以证明事发当天四通印制电路板厂的厕所地面无湿滑现象。@#
被告提供的法规依据有：@#
1．劳动部1996年8月发布的《企业职工工伤保险试行办法》。@#
2．四川省劳动厅于1989年印发的《关于划分因工与非因工伤亡界限的暂行规定》。@#
3．四川省劳动和社会保障厅2002年10月9日《关于职工伤残性质认定问题的复函》。@#
第三人辩称：我厂的厕所从未发生过有人滑倒的情况，被告对何龙章伤亡性质的认定是正确的。@#
在法庭质证中，原告何文良对被告提供的证据1—4无异议，但认为证据5的内容不真实，证据6中的被调查人均为四通厂职工，与被告存在利害关系。同时认为被告在认定何龙章是否属于工伤时对于有关法规和规章的理解有误，因为《企业职工工伤保险试行办法》第八条没有规定必须是在工作岗位上发生的伤亡才是工伤，被告把上班时间“上厕所”理解为与工作无关，没有法律依据，而且《企业职工工伤保险试行办法》第九条中规定的不认定为工伤的情形没有将“上厕所”排除在外。被告认为原告的证据2不能证明现场湿滑，从照片上看地面无明显积水，原告的证据3既不能证明是何龙章发生意外时所穿的衣服，也不能证明厕所湿滑；同时认为认定何龙章是否属于工伤时适用的法规、规章无误，职工“上厕所”与工作无直接关系，应属于私事。第三人对原、被告提供的证据无异议。@#
．．．．．．