>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Sun Lixing v. Labor Bureau of Tianjin Park (Case on Administrative Dispute over Work-related Injury)
孙立兴诉天津园区劳动局工伤认定行政纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Sun Lixing v. Labor Bureau of Tianjin Park (Case on Administrative Dispute over Work-related Injury)
(Case on Administrative Dispute over Work-related Injury)
孙立兴诉天津园区劳动局工伤认定行政纠纷案

Sun Lixing v. Labor Bureau of Tianjin Park
(Case on Administrative Dispute over Work-related Injury)@#

@#

@#
BASIC FACTS@#

Plaintiff: Sun Lixing, male, 58 years old, staff member of Tianjin Zhongli Thunder-proof Technology Co., Ltd., dwelling at Baoshanbeili, Baoshan Ave., Nankai District, Tianjin@#
Defendant: the Bureau of Labor and Personnel of New Technical and Industrial Park of Tianjin, address: Haitai Building, Huayuan Industrial Park, Nankai District, Tianjin@#
Legal Representative: Wang Jianying, Director of the Bureau@#
The Third Party: Tianjin Zhongli Thunder-proof Technology Co., Ltd., address: the International Commercial Center, Huayuan Industrial Park, Nankai District, Tianjin@#
Legal Representative: Sun Weiwei, General Manager of the Company@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
Sun Lixing was dissatisfied with the decision on work-related injury made by the Bureau of Labor and Personnel of the New Technical and Industrial Park of Tianjin (hereinafter referred to as the Bureau) and thus filed an administrative action with the No. 1 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin Municipality. The No. 1 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin Municipality deemed that the plaintiff's working entity, Tianjin Zhongli Thunder-proof Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongli Co., Ltd.) had an interest relationship with the specific administrative act under action and thus notified Zhongli Co., Ltd. to attend the action as the third party.@#
Sun Lixing alleged that: He is a staff member of Zhongli Co., Ltd.. On June 10, 2003, Sun Lei, principal of Zhongli Co., Ltd., dispatched Sun Lixing to drive a Hongqi car of the company to pick up people in Beijing airport before 11 a.m. on the very afternoon and transport a batch of goods to Zhou Enlai and Deng Yingchao Memorial as well. When Sun Lixing got the task, he immediately went to the administrative department of the company to collect the car key and petrol coupon, went through the relevant formalities and hurried downstairs to collect the car. On the stairs of the first floor in the entrance, Sun Lixing fell over the slippery ground from the forth step and was thereby injured. After the accident, Zhongli Co., Ltd. had Sun Lixing sent to hospital for medical treatment, yet stopped paying the expenses for medical treatment as well as Sun Lixing's wage from September 2003 and denied that Sun Lixing suffered from a work-related injury. Upon two applications made by the plaintiff, the Labor Bureau of the park where the defendant is located (hereinafter referred to as the Bureau) made a Decision on the Ascertainment of Work-related Injury (No. 0001 [2004]) on March 5, 2004, deciding not to confirm the plaintiff's injury as work-related injury on such ground that there is no evidence showing that the fall-over is related to work. The plaintiff fell over and was thus injured within the work time and the work place and because of work, which complies with the circumstance as prescribed in item (1), Article 14 of the Regulation on the Work-related Injury Insurance. That the defendant made such a decision according to item (5), Article 14 of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance is wrong in the confirmation of facts and improper in the application of law. The plaintiff pleaded with the court to revoke the Decision on the Ascertainment of Work-related Injury (No. 0001 [2004]) made by the defendant and ordered the defendant to re-decide this accident according to law.@#
......

 

孙立兴诉天津园区劳动局工伤认定行政纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
根据《工伤保险条例》第十四条第(一)项规定,职工在工作时间和工作场所内,因工作原因受到事故伤害,应当认定为工伤。对该规定中的“工作场所”、“因工作原因”应作全面、正确的理解。“工作场所”,是指职工从事职业活动的场所,在有多个工作场所的情形下,还包括职工来往于多个工作场所之间的必经区域;“因工作原因”,是指职工受伤与从事本职工作之间存在因果关系,即职工系因从事本职工作而受伤。除了《工伤保险条例》第十六条规定的因犯罪或者违反治安管理伤亡的、醉酒导致伤亡的、自残或者自杀等情形外,职工在从事工作中存在过失,不影响该因果关系的成立。@#
@#
原告:孙立兴,男,58岁,天津市中力防雷技术有限公司职工,住天津市南开区保山道保山北里。@#
被告:天津新技术产业园区劳动人事局,住所地:天津市南开区华苑产业园区海泰大厦。@#
法定代表人:王建颖,该局局长。@#
第三人:天津市中力防雷技术有限公司,住所地:天津市南开区华苑产业园区国际商业中心。@#
法定代表人:孙巍巍,该公司总经理。@#
@#
原告孙立兴因不服被告天津新技术产业园区劳动人事局(以下简称园区劳动局)所作的工伤认定决定,向天津市第一中级人民法院提起行政诉讼。天津市第一中级人民法院认为原告所在单位天津市中力防雷技术有限公司(以下简称中力公司)与所诉具体行政行为有利害关系,因此通知中力公司作为第三人参加诉讼。@#
原告孙立兴诉称:原告是第三人中力公司的员工。2003年6月10日,中力公司负责人孙磊派原告驾驶公司的红旗轿车于当日上午11点前赶到北京机场接人,顺便先将一批货送至周邓纪念馆附近。原告接受任务后,立即到公司主管部门领取汽车钥匙和汽油票,办理相关手续,然后急忙赶往楼下提车。行至一楼门口台阶时,由于地面滑,行走匆忙,原告从四层台阶上摔倒致伤。事故发生后,中力公司虽然立即派人将原告送往医院治疗,但从2003年9月起停付医疗费和工资,且不承认原告是因工负伤。经原告两次申请,被告园区劳动局于 2004年3月5日做出(2004)0001号《工伤认定决定书》,以没有证据表明摔伤事故系由工作原因造成为由,决定不认定原告的摔伤事故为工伤。原告是在工作时间、工作地点、因工作原因摔倒致伤,符合《工伤保险条例》第十四条第(一)项规定的情形。被告根据《工伤保险条例》第十四条第(五)项所作的决定,认定事实错误,适用法律不当。请求依法撤销被告所作的(2004)0001号《工伤认定决定书》,并判令被告重新确认。@#
原告提交以下证据:@#
1.被告园区劳动局所作的(2004)0001号《工伤认定决定书》,内容是:2004年6月10日上午10点20分左右,中力公司业务员孙立兴在华苑产业区国际商业中心 (以下简称商业中心)一楼门口台阶处因脚底一滑,从四层台阶上摔倒正面着地,造成孙立兴颈髓过伸位损伤合并颈部神经根牵拉伤、上唇挫裂伤、左手臂擦伤、左腿皮擦伤。根据受伤职工本人的工伤申请和医疗诊断证明书,结合我局收集的有关调查材料,依据以国务院令375号颁布的《工伤保险条例》第三章第十四条第(五)项的认定标准,我们认为没有证据表明孙立兴的摔伤事故系由工作原因造成,故决定不认定孙立兴摔伤事故为工伤事故。@#
2.照片两张,用以证明原告摔倒受伤的事故现场。@#
3.红旗轿车保养单据,用以证明原告在2003年4月还为中力公司的红旗轿车进行保养。@#
4.2003年5月原告在中力公司的工作证,用以证明原告确系中力公司员工。@#
被告园区劳动局辩称:经调查,中力公司业务员孙立兴在因工外出期间受伤,但受伤不是由于工作原因,而是由于本人注意力不集中,脚底踩空,才在下台阶时摔伤。其受伤结果与其所接受的工作任务没有明显的因果关系,故不属于《工伤保险条例》第十四条第(五)项规定应当认定工伤的情形。被告根据《工伤保险条例》第十四条第(五)项作出的不认定工伤决定,认定事实清楚,证据充分,程序合法,法院应当维持。@#
被告提供以下证据:@#
1.《工伤保险条例》,用以证明被告具有作出工伤认定的主体资格和职权,所作工伤认定决定内容以及程序均合法。@#
2.孙立兴工伤认定申请表,用以证明该工伤认定决定是应孙立兴本人申请作出的。@#
3.身份证复印件、名片、劳动合同书、工资存折,用以证明孙立兴与中力公司之间存在劳动关系。@#
4.孙立兴病历记录、诊断证明书,用以证明孙立兴受伤的事实。@#
5.对孙磊、吴世伦、刘伟、刘春胜、庞丽爽、杨学长、孙巍巍等人的询问笔录,主要内容是证明孙立兴是市场部职工,与第三人存在劳动关系,发生伤害前曾在中力公司领取汽车油票准备因工外出,等等。@#
第三人中力公司述称:因本公司实行末位淘汰制,原告孙立兴于事发前已经被淘汰。但因其原从事本公司销售工作,还有收回剩余货款的义务,所以才偶尔回公司打电话。事发时,孙立兴已不属于本公司职工,也不是在本公司工作场所范围内摔伤,不符合认定工伤的条件。@#
第三人未提供证据。@#
庭审质证中,原告孙立兴对被告园区劳动局提交的证据2-5没有异议,但认为其是在正常工作时间内接受领导指派,为完成工作任务而受伤,符合《工伤保险条例》第十四条第(一)项的规定,不应适用《工伤保险条例》第十四条第(五)项规定,被告提交的证据1不能证明工伤认定的内容合法。园区劳动局对孙立兴提交的证据无异议。第三人中力公司对孙立兴和园区劳动局提交的证据均未提出异议。@#
......


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 【¥600.00】 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
【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