Case of the High Court: Can a fall injury on the toilet during the lunch break in the company's dormitory be recognized as a work injury?

Source WeChat public account: Oriental Law Search

Transferred from: House of Justice

Special note: All works indicated as "source" or "transferred from" in this number are reproduced from the media, and the copyright belongs to the original author and the original source. The content shared is the author's personal opinion, which is for the reader's study and reference only, and does not represent the views of this number

♢ Case Index: Tang Chaowen and Hengsheng Steel Structure Company Work Injury Administrative Confirmation Case [(2019) Qianxing Shen No. 232]

♢ Adjudication Guidelines: According to Article 14 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance, if an employee is injured by an accident during working hours and in the workplace due to work reasons, or if he or she is injured by an accident while engaged in preparatory or finishing work related to work in the workplace before and after working hours, it shall be deemed to be an industrial injury. The retrial applicant in this case, Tang Chaowen, went to work from 8:00 to 12:00 a.m. and from 15:00 to 19:00 p.m. on the same day, and he fell in the toilet of the dormitory area after taking a nap at about 14:03 p.m. on the same day, which was the rest time of the retrial applicant, which was not a working time, and the place of his fall was not a workplace, let alone an injury due to work reasons or a job-related preparatory work. Therefore, the first-instance judgment revoked the case involved the "Decision on The Determination of Work Injury", and the second-instance judgment upheld it, which was not improper.

Guizhou Provincial High People's Court

Administrative decisions

(2019) Qianxing Shen No. 232

The applicant for the retrial (the third party in the first instance and the appellant in the second instance) Tang Chaowen, male, born on April 20, 1969, of Han ethnicity, lives in Gaoping District, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province.

The entrusted agent Tang Fan was the son of Tang Dynasty Wen.

The respondent (plaintiff in the first instance and appellee in the second instance) Hengsheng Steel Structure Co., Ltd. in Gaoping District, Nanchong City. The residence is located in the Xinchuan Plastic Steel Base, No. 201 Jinda Road, Gaoping District, Gaoping District, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province.

The legal representative, Li Zewu, is the general manager of the company.

Entrusted litigation agent Xiao Lirong, a lawyer at Guizhou Yongqing Law Firm.

Entrusted litigation agent Chen Jingjing, a lawyer at Guizhou Yongqing Law Firm.

The defendant of the first instance and the appellant of the second instance, the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Qianxi Southwest Buyi and Miao Autonomous Prefecture. The residence is No. 22 Jianshe Road, Xingyi City, Guizhou Province.

The legal representative is Wang Jun, the director of the bureau.

The retrial applicant Tang Chaowen applied to this court for a retrial in connection with the administrative confirmation of the work injury of the respondent, Gaoping District Hengsheng Steel Structure Co., Ltd., Nanchong City, against the administrative judgment of the Intermediate People's Court of Qianxi Southwest Buyi and Miao Autonomous Prefecture in Guizhou Province (2018) Qian23 Xing Zhong No. 48. This court formed a collegial panel to review the case in accordance with law, and the review has now been concluded.

Tang Chaowen applied for a retrial, stating that 1. The court of second instance violated legal procedures by failing to serve the notice of acceptance, evidence and summons on the applicant for retrial, and proceeded with the judgment without conducting an investigation and inquiry. 2. The second-instance judgment is beyond the scope of review of the first-instance judgment, and there is an error in over-judgment. The first-instance judgment that the applicant for retrial did not comply with the provisions of Article 14 (1) of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance, and the second-instance judgment found that the applicant for retrial did not comply with the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance on the basis of finding that the application of law in the first instance was correct. 3. The retrial applicant who is injured during working hours, place of work, or due to work reasons shall be deemed to be a work injury. First, the construction site is on the same site as the resting place and toilets. Rest places and toilets are effective areas for daily production and operation activities and reasonable areas for natural extension. Secondly, the company in which the applicant works for the retrial is a sole proprietorship company, and there can be no fixed commuting system under the administrative organ system. During the second-instance trial, the retrial applicant inquired about the "hot weather that day" proposed by several witnesses of the first instance, and found that the maximum temperature on the day was only 22 degrees, suitable for outdoor work, which was enough to overturn his false statement, and the evidence was new evidence, because the second-instance court violated procedural regulations, resulting in the retrial applicant failing to submit the evidence to the second-instance court. Finally, going to the toilet is the normal physiological need of workers and is a necessary condition for ensuring the ability of workers to work. Employees going to the toilet in the workplace and during working hours should be regarded as the reason for work. Apply for a retrial in accordance with the provisions of items (2), (4) and (5) of article 91 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.

Nanchong Gaoping District Hengsheng Steel Structure Co., Ltd. replied that 1. The facts of the first and second instance courts were clearly determined, and the respondent's request for retrial had no factual and legal basis. The respondent fell at 14:03 and was injured, which did not belong to the prescribed working hours or temporarily arranged working hours, let alone the extended or advanced working hours of the employees themselves. The respondent was resting in a different place from his workplace, and his toilet fall in the dormitory area was certainly not an injury in the workplace. When the Respondent fell, he wore only the underwear he wore when he slept, and did not fall as a result of performing his job duties or engaging in preparatory work related to his work; at the time of his fall, all the co-workers were sleeping, and the trial had found that the Respondent and other workers usually prepared up to twenty minutes in advance, and it was unreasonable and logical that his claim that preparation work needed to be carried out one hour in advance was not reasonable and logical. The new evidence of the temperature information inquired by the respondent is of no substantive significance, let alone overturn the original judgment. 2. On May 13, 2019, the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Southwest Qianxi Buyi and Miao Autonomous Prefecture made a decision not to recognize the work injury. 3. The trial judgment of the court of second instance did not violate the statutory litigation procedures, the second-instance judgment did not exceed the scope of its trial, and the law was correct. Request rejection of the applicant's application for retrial.

The Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Qianxi Southwest Buyi and Miao Autonomous Prefecture replied that the second-instance judgment found that the facts were clear. First of all, the relevant evidence confirms that Tang Dynasty Wen's working hours are 8:00-12:00 in the morning and 15:00-19:00 in the afternoon. The period from 12:00 to 15:00 is its rest and free time. Secondly, Tang Chaowen fell in the toilet of the dormitory area, not the factory area, and was not injured in the workplace. Third, Tang Chaowen fell in the toilet at about 14:00 and was not injured for work reasons or work-related preparatory work. The second-instance judgment applied the law correctly and was final, and the respondent obeyed the judgment and restarted the work injury determination procedure based on the judgment result. The Respondent obeys the outcome of the retrial and will be executed in strict accordance with the court's decision.

The Court held that, according to Article 14 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance, if an employee is injured by an accident during working hours and in the workplace due to work reasons, or if he or she is injured by an accident in the workplace before or after working hours, he or she shall be deemed to be injured by an accident. The retrial applicant in this case, Tang Chaowen, went to work from 8:00 to 12:00 a.m. and from 15:00 to 19:00 p.m. on the same day, and he fell in the toilet of the dormitory area after taking a nap at about 14:03 p.m. on the same day, which was the rest time of the retrial applicant, which was not a working time, and the place of his fall was not a workplace, let alone an injury due to work reasons or a job-related preparatory work. Therefore, if the applicant for retrial Tang Chaowen falls in the toilet of the dormitory area at about 14:03, it shall be regarded as a work injury or a work injury if it does not meet the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance. The first-instance judgment revoking the case involved the "Decision on The Determination of Work Injury", and the second-instance judgment upheld it, which was not improper.

With regard to the "hot weather that day" raised by the applicant for retrial against several witnesses of the first instance, it was found that the maximum temperature on that day was only 22 degrees, suitable for outdoor work, enough to overturn his false statement, and this evidence was new evidence, because the court of second instance violated procedural regulations, resulting in the failure to submit this evidence to the court of second instance for retrial. According to the second paragraph of article 7 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning Evidence in Administrative Litigation, "The people's court will not accept evidence that the plaintiff or a third party did not provide in the first-instance trial procedure without a legitimate reason but provided it in the second-instance trial procedure." ". In this case, the evidence provided by the retrial applicant was not new evidence prescribed by law, and the content of the evidence was not causally related to whether the injury suffered by the retrial applicant was a work injury, nor was it sufficient to overturn the relevant evidence that had been cross-examined and accepted by the court of first instance. The grounds for the retrial application of the applicant for retrial cannot be established.

The law on the second-instance judgment submitted by the applicant for retrial applies the grounds for applying for retrial beyond the scope of the review. According to Article 87 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, "People's courts hearing appeal cases shall conduct a comprehensive review of the judgments, rulings, and administrative acts of the original people's court. The court of second instance held that the circumstances involved in the case did not conform to the circumstances of the recognition of work injury as stipulated in Article 14 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance, nor did it conform to the situation of treating work-related injuries as stipulated in Article 15 of the Regulations, and did not exceed the scope of review, and the grounds for the retrial application could not be established. The retrial applicant's other application for retrial is not sufficient to cause a retrial of the case, and its retrial request is not supported by this court.

In summary, Tang Chaowen's application for retrial does not comply with the circumstances that should be retried as provided for in article 91 (2), (4) and (5) of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. In accordance with the second paragraph of article 116 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the ruling is as follows:

Tang Chaowen's application for retrial was rejected.

Chief Judge Cui Fengqin

Judge Deng Hongbo

Judge Shi Jiahong

August 19, 2019

Assistant judge Wang Jing

Clerk Li Jing