【 Case of law 】 In the company canteen to accompany the customer sudden death after drinking, work injury?The court sentenced to

2022-09-20 0 By

Ouyang Feng department of the western region company workers, both sides signed a labor contract.On September 17, 2018, Ouyang Feng arrived at The Beijing Branch for technical exchange with the customer. At about 18:00 PM, he accompanied the customer in the company canteen with the consent of the leaders.After dinner, Ouyang Feng accommodation, No. 102, Building 5, a garden, Haidian District, Beijing.At around 11:20 am on September 18, ouyang feng’s staff found him unconscious and unable to respond to calls, so they called emergency services and the police.Around 11:28, rescue center personnel arrived at the scene, found ouyang Feng bilateral pupils dilated fixed, light reflection disappeared, limbs stiff, declared clinical death.On September 22, 2018, the public security organ issued a “death certificate” stating that “he died of sudden death after drinking on September 18, 2018, in No. 102, Building 5, A garden, Haidian District, Beijing. Please be cremated”.On September 23 of the same year, Beijing Babaoshan Funeral Home issued a “cremation certificate”.On November 6, 2018, the company applied for the recognition of work-related injury, and on January 9, 2019, after being accepted by the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, it sent a letter to The Haidian Branch of Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau to assist in the investigation of Ouyang Feng’s sudden death after drinking, requiring the branch to issue evidence materials related to ouyang Feng’s “sudden death after drinking” in the Death Certificate.After receiving the assistance, the branch provided the judicial Appraisal Report.According to the report of the Judicial Appraisal Center of Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau, alcohol was detected in the blood, with a content of 325.6MG / 100ML.Common barbiturates, phenothiazines and benzodiazepines were not detected in the blood samples.”According to the above examination, there was no obvious trauma, combined with the case investigation, scene investigation and toxicology test results, so the analysis of the cause of death was consistent with sudden death after drinking.Appraisal opinion: Ouyang seal accord with sudden death after drinking.On January 28, 2019, the Bureau of Human Resources and Social Security issued a decision not to identify industrial injury, holding that ouyang Feng’s injury was in accordance with the provisions of Item (2) of Article 16 of the Regulations on Industrial injury Insurance, and was not within the scope of industrial injury identification, and could not be identified as industrial injury or regarded as industrial injury.The company refused to accept the decision and applied for administrative reconsideration. On June 11, 2019, the Municipal Government made an administrative reconsideration decision and maintained the Decision not to identify work-related injury made by the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau on January 28, 2019.The company refused to accept and sued the court.The reasons for prosecution are as follows: 1. The defendant’s decision did not take the cause of Ouyang Feng’s death into comprehensive consideration and quoted Article 16 of The Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance, which is inconsistent with the provisions of the Social Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China that work-related injury shall not be recognized when he is drunk. Relevant provisions of the Social Insurance Law shall apply to Ouyang Feng’s case.The expressions prescribed by the Social Insurance Law emphasize the causal relationship between drunkenness and the death of an employee.Drunkenness should not uniformly regard as the cause that does not approve inductrial injury, should inspect worker drunkenness and whether there is cause and effect between oneself casualty accident to treat differently.The social insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China is more effective than the Regulations on Work-related injury Insurance.2. The facts were not ascertained in the decision made by the defendant, and the cause of Ouyang Feng’s death was not specified.Although Ouyang Feng had drunk and reached the state of drunkenness, drunkenness did not necessarily lead to death.Judgment of first Instance Judgment of first instance: Ouyang Feng sudden death after drinking was drunk, and could not be identified as industrial injury according to law. The court of first instance held that: The focus of this case is: whether the applicable law is correct when the administrative organ makes the decision not to identify industrial injury and the Decision of Administrative Reconsideration;”Byelow of inductrial injury insurance” 16th article (2) and “law of social insurance of People’s Republic of China” 37th article (2) whether conflict.”Law of social insurance of People’s Republic of China” 37 regulation “because one of the following circumstances causes oneself to be in the job of casualty, do not maintain inductrial injury :(1) intentional crime;(2) being drunk or taking drugs;(3) self-mutilation or suicide;(4) Other circumstances stipulated by laws and administrative regulations “.”Industrial injury insurance regulations” article 16 provides that “the worker conforms to the provisions of article 14, article 15 of these regulations, but there is one of the following circumstances, shall not be identified as industrial injury or regarded as industrial injury :(1) intentional crime;(2) drunk or drugged;(3) self-mutilation or suicide “.In this case, the cause of ouyang feng’s death is identified in the appraisal report. According to the appraisal, alcohol was detected in ouyang feng’s blood, with a content of 325.6MG / 100ML. According to the judgment standard of drunk driving in China, the alcohol content in blood per 100ML is more than 80MG, and it belongs to drunk driving.Ouyang feng’s alcohol level per 100ML of blood reached 325.6MG, which was clearly drunk.Ouyang Feng on business during the presence of sudden death drunk drunk situation, the two defendants make a decision to apply “industrial injury insurance regulations” provisions of the 16th provision of the second provisions of the applicable laws and regulations are correct;Article 16 (2) of the Regulations on Work-related injury Insurance does not conflict with Article 37 (2) of the Social Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China.The facts are clear, the evidence is solid, the laws and regulations are applied correctly, and the procedures are in accordance with the law.The plaintiff’s cause of action is not established and the court of first instance does not support it.According to article 69 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the court rejected the company’s claim.The company appealed against it.The court of second Instance held that Ouyang Feng died of sudden death after drinking alcohol while working outside, and it was determined that his blood alcohol level was far above the standard for intoxication.The facts are clear, the evidence is conclusive, and the applicable laws and regulations are correct.The company said the first-instance court failed to find a link between Ouyangfeng’s death and drunkenness. After investigation, a judicial expert’s opinion was that Ouyangfeng’s death was consistent with drunkenness.Therefore, the company’s grounds for appeal cannot be established, and the court does not accept.The verdict of the second instance is as follows: The appeal is rejected and the original judgment is upheld.Application for retrial application for retrial: according to the regulation of social insurance law, drunk should not be uniformly regarded as not to identify the cause of work-related injury, the court judgment error company or defiant, to the high court application for retrial.For the following reasons: “byelaw of inductrial injury insurance regulations regardless of whether there is a causal relationship between drunk and fatalities, which shall not be deemed inductrial injury, but the social insurance law of the People’s Republic of China, causing casualties in my work emphasizes the causal relationship between the drunk and worker casualty, drunk should be uniform as the reason for not cognizance inductrial injury.Namely, if the worker is drunk and there is no causal relationship between their casualties, can not be drunk for not identifying industrial injury.Therefore, this case should be applied to the provisions of the social insurance law, in the absence of a causal relationship between Ouyang feng’s death and drunkenness, should be identified as the death of Ouyang Feng industrial injury.The decision not to identify industrial injury made by the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau is wrong, and the original judgment rejecting the company’s lawsuit is obviously incorrect, which violates the legislative purpose and spirit of the Social Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China.The court ruled that the court ruled that ouyang blood alcohol content is far more than a drunken standards, in line with the drink and sudden death, the company’s application reasons can’t set up the court after examination, believes that the main reason why the company to mention retrial application for ouyang seal there is no causal relationship between death and drunkenness, and should not be drunk as the reason for not cognizance inductrial injury.But for the cause of Ouyang feng’s sudden death while working outside, the public security judicial appraisal center issued an appraisal opinion determined that Ouyang Feng’s blood alcohol level far exceeded the standard of being drunk, consistent with sudden death after drinking.Therefore, the above reasons of the company cannot be established.The decision not to identify industrial injury made by the Bureau of Human Resources and Social Security according to item 2 of Article 16 of the Regulations on Industrial injury Insurance and the Decision of administrative Reconsideration made by the municipal government are not proper.The original judgment rejected the company’s lawsuit request correctly.The company’s retrial application does not conform to the provisions of Article 91 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China.The High court ruled as follows: The company’s application for retrial was denied.Source: Shandong High Law, Labor Law Library