The Death Penalty For 1 Minutes Late Is Not A Work-Related Injury.

Mr. Tong, an employee of an enterprise in Shenzhen, continued to insist on treatment after his wife died of brain death, which led to his wife's legal recognition that the death time was more than 48 hours and could not be identified as an industrial injury.

Therefore, Mr. Tong fought against the Shenzhen Municipal Bureau of social affairs.

In the end, Mr. Tong's lawsuit was rejected by the Yantian District Court of Shenzhen.

The 48 hour clause for industrial injury can be traced back to "

"Article fifteenth provides:" during work hours and jobs, sudden death or death within 48 hours shall be regarded as the same.

"

In this case, if the provisions are fully in accordance with the provisions, the judgment of the local court does not seem to be wrong.

However, the verdict and the legitimacy of the provision are doomed to controversy.

It is only a work-related injury. The standard of recognition is not only unacceptable to the families of the deceased, but also difficult for the public to understand.

This provision has also caused many problems in practice.

In this case, the family members had insisted on the treatment and exceeded the time limit for determining the work-related injury. In many cases, the employer used the rule to avoid compensation.

For example, in 2012, Yin Guangan, a 51 year old construction worker, was sent to the hospital for cerebral hemorrhage for 6 hours, and the doctor declared his brain death. But the labor company asked the hospital to maintain the life of Yin Guang'an for more than 48 hours.

How to identify work-related injuries is to test the ability of legislators to balance the interests of enterprises and employees.

If the standard is too loose, it will inevitably leave empty space for "cheat" industrial injury behavior and increase the burden of enterprises. If the standard is too tight, it may cast a shadow over the rights and interests of employees.

48 hours of affirmation can be regarded as a "hard" standard, and it is really very difficult to exploit loopholes.

But the problem is that it evades the complexity of medical rescue itself, such as different treatment conditions, and there will be great differences in the time of death.

Let the family members of the deceased fall into the dilemma of "compensation" or "desperately". The ethical risks and moral dilemmas behind them should not be underestimated.

In the case of law, the modification of the "48 hour clause" should not be shelved.

A legal clause that triggering "families desperately burying people alive and desperately trying to save the dead" can not guarantee justice.

Before the formal revision of the law, the court should also return to the original intention of the legislation and make decisions according to the specific circumstances instead of merely killing the legal texts.

Related links:

In October 14, 2005, Feng went to work in a printing company, and the printing company had not paid social insurance premiums for Feng.

On July 29, 2014, Feng had a traffic accident on his way to work, and has never been to work since then.

After Feng was identified as work-related injuries.

In February 28, 2015, Feng MOU signed a compensation agreement for industrial accidents with the printing company. The contents are: the two sides terminate the labor relationship, and the printing company can compensate lump sum, disability allowance, follow-up treatment fee and escort fee for 60 thousand yuan.

In April 2015, Feng submitted an application to the labor dispute arbitration committee of the District, and demanded that the printing company pay 8930.99 yuan in arrears for 5~7 months in 2014.

After the ruling of the Arbitration Commission, Feng refused to accept the case and filed a lawsuit with the district court.

The printing company argued that Feng's requests had been disposed of in the agreement reached between the two sides in February 28, 2015. Therefore, Feng asked for wages again and should not be supported.

The court held that from the content of the industrial injury compensation agreement, the 60 thousand yuan paid by the printing company is only the amount of compensation made for Feng's injury, and no other costs involved.

Feng worked hard in the printing company before the injury, and the printing company should pay wages.

A printing company should be responsible for the management of the wages and salaries of its staff and workers, and shall provide wage payment vouchers or records.

But the wage table provided by the printing company is not enough to prove the wage distribution of Feng, and should bear adverse consequences.

Feng claimed that the printing company should pay back its 5~7 month salary in 2012, and should support it.

Accordingly, the court ruled that the printing company paid 8930.99 yuan of wages owed by Feng, and dismissed other arbitration requests.