May 31, 2010
---------------------
Monday
>>>Welcome visitor, you're not logged in.
Login   Subscribe Now!
Home User Management About Us Chinese
  Bookmark   Download   Print
Search:  serch "Fabao" Window Font Size: Home PageHome PageHome Page
 
Shanghai Wenhe Foot Health Care Services v. Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Putuo District, Shanghai Municipality (Case about identification of a work-related injury)
上海温和足部保健服务部诉上海市普陀区人力资源和社会保障局工伤认定案
【法宝引证码】
 
  
Shanghai Wenhe Foot Health Care Services v. Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Putuo District, Shanghai Municipality (Case about identification of a work-related injury) 上海温和足部保健服务部诉上海市普陀区人力资源和社会保障局工伤认定案
[Judgment Abstract] [裁判摘要]
Where an employee suffers from a sudden disease during the working hours and on the post, upon emergency treatment, the doctors have explicitly informed the employee's family members that they fail to save the employee's life, and the employee dies on the way to his home by ambulance, it shall be identified that the employee is sitll not out of treatment and rescue. Where the period from an employ's suffering from a disease to his death does not exceed 48 hours, it shall be deemed that “the employee dies within 48 hours of emergency rescue” and the death shall be deemed as a work-related injury. 职工在工作时间和工作岗位上突发疾病,经抢救后医生虽然明确告知家属无法挽救生命,在救护车运送回家途中职工死亡的,仍应认定其未脱离治疗抢救状态。若职工自发病至死亡期间未超过48小时,应视为“48小时之内经抢救无效死亡”,视同工伤。
Plaintiff: Shanghai Wenhe Foot Health Care Services, domiciled in Yichuan Road, Putuo District, Shanghai Municipality. 原告:上海温和足部保健服务部
Investor: Wu Jianhuang, person-in-charge of the Services. 投资人:吴建煌,该部负责人。
Defendant: Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Putuo District, Shanghai Municipality, domiciled in Daduhe Road, Putuo District, Shanghai Municipality. 被告:上海市普陀区人力资源和社会保障局
Legal Representative: Cai Jianyong, Director of the Bureau. 法定代表人:蔡建勇,该局局长。
Third Person: Wu Haibo, male, 26 years old, Chinese Han, domiciled in Sheyang County, Jiangsu Province. 第三人:吴海波
Third Person: He Congmei, female, 47 years old, Chinese Han, domiciled in Sheyang County, Jiangsu Province. 第三人:何从美
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
Plaintiff Shanghai Wenhe Foot Health Care Services (hereinafter referred to as “Wenhe Foot Health Care Services”) filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Putuo District, Shanghai Municipality against defendant Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Putuo District, Shanghai Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the “Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Putuo District”) for dispute over identification of a work-related injury. 原告上海温和足部保健服务部(以下简称温和足保部)因与被告上海市普陀区人力资源和社会保障局(以下简称普陀区人保局)发生工伤认定纠纷,向上海市普陀区人民法院提起诉讼。
...... 原告温和足保部诉称:被告普陀区人保局作出工伤认定未查清死者吴亚海的工作时间、工作岗位及死亡原因,事实认定不清,法律适用错误,请求法院撤销被诉行政行为。
 被告普陀区人保局查明,第三人何从美、吴海波于2014年10月13日提出申请,称吴亚海于2013年12月23日在工作中突发疾病,于2013年12月24日因抢救无效死亡,要求认定工伤。普陀区人保局认为,吴亚海于2013年12月23日工作时突发疾病,当日送同济医院救治,次日死亡。吴亚海受到的伤害,符合《工伤保险条例》第十五条第(一)项之规定、《上海市工伤保险实施办法》第十五条第(一)项之规定,属于视同工伤范围,现予以视同为工伤。
 被告普陀区人保局辩称:被诉行政行为认定事实清楚、适用法律正确、程序合法,请求驳回原告温和足保部诉请。
 两第三人共同述称:不同意原告温和足保部的诉讼请求,被告普陀区社保局所作行政行为符合法律规定。
 
 上海市普陀区人民法院一审查明:
 上海市普陀区劳动人事争议仲裁委员会于2014年8月19日作出普劳人仲(2014)办字第2570号裁决书,认定吴亚海与原告温和足保部自2012年12月20日至2013年12月24日存在劳动关系。何从美、吴海波系死者吴亚海的妻子和儿子,两人于2014年10月13日向被告普陀区人保局提出申请,要求对吴亚海于2013年12月23日在工作中突发疾病于次日抢救无效死亡进行工伤认定。普陀区人保局于2014年10月22日受理后,进行了工伤认定调查,同年12月19日作出普陀人社认(2014)字第1194号认定工伤决定,认为吴亚海受到的伤害,符合《工伤保险条例》第十五条第(一)项之规定、《上海市工伤保险实施办法》第十五条第(一)项之规定,属于视同工伤范围,现予以视同为工伤。
 上海市普陀区人民法院一审认为:
 根据《工伤保险条例》第五条第二款、《上海市工伤保险实施办法》第五条第二款的规定,被告普陀区人保局作为劳动保障行政部门,依法具有作出工伤认定的执法主体资格。本案中,普陀区人保局提供的证据具有真实性、关联性和合法性,可以作为定案证据,上海市普陀区人民法院予以确认。普陀区人保局收到第三人申请后在10个工作日内予以受理,并在受理后60日内作出了工伤认定,符合法定程序。根据《工伤保险条例》第十五条第(一)项的规定,“职工有下列情形之一的,视同工伤:在工作时间和工作岗位,突发疾病死亡或者在48小时之内经抢救无效死亡的”。本案中,依据普劳人仲(2014)办字第2570号上海市普陀区劳动人事争议仲裁委员会裁决书、普陀区人保局对原告温和足保部投资人吴建煌等的调查笔录、上海市同济医院门急诊病历、居民死亡医学证明书等,可认定吴亚海系原告单位的职工,其于2014年12月23日在工作时间和工作岗位上突发疾病,并经送医抢救后于次日死亡。根据《工伤保险条例》第十九条第二款的规定,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。即原告不认为吴亚海是工伤的,应承担相应的举证责任。原告于工伤认定调查程序中未提供相应证据推翻上述结论,并且本案中原告的证据也不足以推翻被告认定的事实。需要指出,普陀区人保局在认定工伤决定书上“吴亚海受到的伤害”的表述虽有瑕疵,但该瑕疵不足以撤销被诉行政行为。综上所述,普陀区人保局作出被诉行政行为,主要事实认定清楚、适用法律正确。原告要求撤销被诉行政行为的诉讼请求,缺乏事实证据和法律依据,依法不能成立,难以支持。
 ......



Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . You can purchase a single article through Online Pay to immediately view and download this document. Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0712
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com


 


您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区,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,请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 ;您也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案例 。如有问题请来电咨询;
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com


     
     
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝www.lawinfochina.com
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.
 
Home | Products and Services | FAQ | Disclaimer | Chinese | Site Map
©2012 Chinalawinfo Co., Ltd.    database@chinalawinfo.com  Tel: +86 (10) 8268-9699  京ICP证010230-8