Hainan Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security Zhang and other administrative first-instance judgments
Haikou Intermediate People's Court of Hainan Province
the administrative ruling
(20 16) Qiong 0 1 Hangchu 376
Plaintiff Zhang.
Defendant Hainan Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security.
Legal representative He Mou, director.
Authorized Agent: Yan, lawyer of Hainan Ruilai Law Firm.
Entrusted agent Huang.
Plaintiff Zhang refuses to accept the decision 1 made by the Human Resources and Social Security Department of Hainan Province (hereinafter referred to as the Provincial People's Social Security Department) on 20 16 1658. Longhua Court made an administrative ruling (20 16 10) on October 27th, 20 16 10, and transferred it to our court for handling. After filing the case in our hospital on 201616, a collegial panel was formed according to law, and the case was heard in public on 20 16 12. Zhang, the plaintiff, and Yan and Huang, the defendants, entrusted the Provincial People's Social Welfare Department to appear in court to participate in the litigation. The case has now been closed.
On May 27th, 20 16, the People's Social Welfare Department of the defendant province made the decision 1002. Plaintiff Zhang 1, the main contents are as follows: "Your application for work-related injury identification of left-hand needle stick injury (hepatitis C) on May 27, 20/kloc-0+08+04 does not meet the acceptance conditions stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance.
Plaintiff Zhang claims that the plaintiff is a surgeon of Hainan Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine. On June 4th, 20 10, the plaintiff accidentally stabbed the finger of his left hand while performing thyroidectomy for a patient (hepatitis C patient). On August 20 13, he was treated in Hainan Branch of General Hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army (hereinafter referred to as 30 1 Branch) and transferred to Hainan Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine. On September, 2004, Kloc-0/8 and 20 19 were transferred to the Third Second Hospital of China People's Liberation Army (hereinafter referred to as Hospital 302), and were diagnosed as decompensated ascites due to hepatitis C cirrhosis (the plaintiff's indexes A, B and C were normal in physical examination in 2009). On March 5, 2005, the plaintiff submitted an Application for Work Injury Identification to the defendant, and on April 7, 2006, the defendant served the plaintiff with the DecisionNo. 102 of April 3, 2006. [2015]1.2015 On June 8, the plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit with Longhua Court. 20 1510.8, Longhua court made (20 15) the administrative judgment of Longxing zichu No.23, and decided to cancel the [20 15] No.65438 made by the Provincial People's Social Welfare Department. The Provincial People's Social Welfare Department refused to accept the judgment and appealed to Haikou Intermediate People's Court. Haikou Intermediate People's Court made an administrative judgment (20 16) J 01on March 29th, 2016, dismissed the appeal, upheld the original judgment, and ordered the Provincial People's Social Welfare Department to take another specific administrative action on the plaintiff's application for work-related injury identification.
1. DecisionNo. The defendant's 1 violates Article 71 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, which stipulates that "if the people's court judges the defendant to make an administrative act again, the defendant shall not make an administrative act that is basically the same as the original administrative act with the same facts and reasons".
Second, the defendant believed that the plaintiff's application for work-related injury identification exceeded the application period, but the explanation and reply to the plaintiff about when to start the application period were inconsistent and contradictory. And the plaintiff began to apply for work-related injury identification from March 20 14, and the defendant's staff refused to accept the plaintiff's declaration for various reasons.
3. The Diagnostic Criteria for Hepatitis C and the Diagnostic Criteria for Liver Cirrhosis issued by the State on 20 14 clearly stipulate that HCVRNA (quantitative detection of ribonucleic acid typing) is an important basis for its diagnosis, but 30 1 branch has not been able to carry out laboratory examination of hepatitis C typing so far, and it is impossible to make a diagnosis. Whether liver cirrhosis is caused by hepatitis C requires multi-party testing and proof. So far, the defendant has not organized any relevant experts to demonstrate and discuss, which is to shirk responsibility and transfer contradictions.
To sum up, request the people's court to: 1, and revoke the decision of 1; 2. Order the defendant to accept the plaintiff's application for work-related injury identification according to law and make a work-related injury identification; The litigation costs in this case shall be borne by the defendant.
Plaintiff Zhang provided the following evidence to our hospital:
1, [20 15]No. 1, Decision on Rejection of Work Injury Identification Application; Facts that prove the defendant's specific administrative act.
2. Longhua Court (20 15) Longxing Zichu No.23 Administrative Judgment; It is proved that [20 15]No. 1 Decision on Rejecting the Application for Work-related Injury Identification was revoked by the first instance according to law.
3. Haikou Intermediate People's Court (20 16) No.5 J 0 1 administrative judgment at the end of the line; It is proved that [20 15]No. 1 Decision on Not Accepting the Application for Work-related Injury Identification was revoked in accordance with the law.
4. Decision 1; The fact that the defendant made a specific administrative act again for the same factual reason.
5. Provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China; This proves the negative decision. 1 made by the defendant is illegal.
6. Diagnostic criteria for hepatitis C XXX-2008；; It proves that the defendant once again violated the diagnostic standard of hepatitis C confirmed by the Ministry of Health, and his declaration of dereliction of duty for overtime work injury was wrong.
7. The full text of the Regulations on Industrial Injury Insurance 2013; It proves that it is wrong for the defendant to misinterpret the overtime ruling made after the accident injury as the overtime ruling after the accident injury.
8. Yang v. Wuxi Labor and Social Security Bureau (case of administrative dispute over ascertainment of work-related injury); Prove that the defendant's overtime ruling is wrong.
9. The plaintiff's relevant diagnosis certificate, transfer certificate and witness testimony; Prove the plaintiff's clinical diagnosis-the rationality and legality of the diagnosis, the authenticity of the work-related injury identification and the accuracy and reliability of the source of the disease.
10, the plaintiff's hepatitis C test report in 2009; 5. Prove that Zhang's hepatitis C test index was normal during the physical examination in 2009, and he was not infected with hepatitis C virus.
1 1, Luo Mou2010 65438+10/3 Immunological Test Report of Hainan Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine; 3. Prove the fact that Luo was diagnosed as hepatitis C before the operation on 201013.
12, Luo medical record of Hainan Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine; It is proved that Zhang operated on Luo on the morning of 201014 and was stabbed by his assistant Feng.
13. The plaintiff's medical record in Section 30 1; In order to prove the fact that the plaintiff was hospitalized, the qualitative test items of HCVRNA were missing, so there was no diagnostic basis.
14. The medical record of the plaintiff in Hainan Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine; Prove the fact that the plaintiff was hospitalized, and prove that the qualitative test items of HCVRNA are missing, so there is no diagnostic basis.
15. The plaintiff's medical record in 302 Hospital; The fact that the plaintiff was hospitalized was proved, and the HCVRNA qualitative test classification was completed. It can be considered that there is a clear basis for diagnosis, but it needs to be qualitative.
16. The plaintiff consulted the medical record of Huang, a patient who underwent gynecological surgery at night in Hainan Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine; Prove that the plaintiff still insisted on operating the post before the onset, which led to overwork and induced illness.
17. Employment Contract and Renewal of Employment Contract of Institutions signed by the plaintiff and Hainan Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine; It is proved that the plaintiff has worked in Hainan Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine since 20 10 1 as the chief physician, and both parties have labor relations (talents were introduced to work in Hainan Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine in 2008).
18, application for work-related injury identification; Prove the acceptance time and facts of the application for work-related injury identification submitted by the plaintiff.
Defendant Provincial People's Social Welfare Department argued: 1. The fact that the judgment was not made by the defendant 1 is clear and the procedure is legal. On March 9, 20 15, the plaintiff submitted the written application materials for work-related injury identification to the defendant, and submitted the labor contract, the application form for work-related injury identification, the medical records of 302 Hospital and other materials. He complained that his left finger was infected with hepatitis C when he was treated with acupuncture on 20 10, 18, 10 4, and he was not treated in time. 20 14, 19 was diagnosed as decompensated hepatitis c cirrhosis ascites in 302 hospital on September 9, and it is required to be recognized as a work-related injury and enjoy work-related injury insurance benefits. According to the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, the defendant verified his application according to the needs of examination. The defendant was stabbed in the left hand while operating at work on 20/0/0/4, and was diagnosed as hepatitis C on 20/0/308/0/6 by 30 1 department 2065438. According to the above facts, the defendant made judgment 1002 on May 27th, 2006. 1 and decided not to accept it.
Two. Decide no. 1 made by the defendant has conclusive evidence and the applicable legal basis is correct. Paragraph 2 of Article 17 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance stipulates: "If the employer fails to apply for work-related injury identification in accordance with the regulations, the workers with work-related injuries or their close relatives or trade unions may directly apply for work-related injury identification within 1 year from the date of accident injury or the date of diagnosis and identification as an occupational disease." Paragraph 3 of Article 14 of Several Provisions on Work-related Injury Insurance in Hainan Special Economic Zone stipulates that "applications for work-related injury identification beyond the prescribed time limit will not be accepted." First of all, the plaintiff was injured on June 4, 20 10 due to work reasons, and his employer failed to apply for work-related injury identification. The plaintiff himself should apply for work-related injury identification within 1 year from the date of accident injury, that is, the plaintiff should apply for work-related injury identification on June 4, 201year at the latest. In addition, the medical record of Plaintiff 302 Hospital on September 20th/KOOC-0/4/KOOC-0/9 recorded: "On August 20th/KOOC-0/3 ..... he went to Hainan Branch of 30/KOOC-0/Hospital for anti-HCV, and was diagnosed as cirrhosis C". 201August 316th, 30 1 Department medical records show that the plaintiff complained about the medical history and signed "1August 3, there was no obvious edema of both lower limbs and waist ... The edema of both lower limbs after drinking was more obvious than before, and the plaintiff should have been treated in Hainan Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine ... If the plaintiff doesn't know that the accident of 20 10 will lead to his illness due to objective reasons, he should know the result of the accident injury in August of 13 at the latest. Therefore, the plaintiff's application for work-related injury identification has exceeded the time limit for application for work-related injury identification stipulated by laws and regulations, which does not meet the acceptance conditions stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance.
3. decide no. The 1 made by the defendant does not violate the provisions of Article 71 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. On April, 20 15, the defendant made the decision of [20 1 5]No. 1 not to accept the application for work-related injury identification, and decided not to accept the plaintiff's application for work-related injury identification. Longhua Court and Haikou Intermediate People's Court held through trial that the defendant could not prove that he had obtained the relevant materials of the plaintiff's medical treatment in Branch No.301before the specific administrative act, and could not be used as evidence for making a decision to reject the application for work-related injury identification. [20 15]No. 1 has procedural errors, which shall be revoked and ordered to make a specific administrative act again. The defendant now takes the relevant materials handled by the plaintiff at 30 1 branch as new evidence, and it is not improper for the defendant to make a rejection decision again. It does not violate "if the court decides that the administrative organ has made a specific administrative act again, the administrative organ shall not make an administrative act that is basically the same as the original specific administrative act with the same facts and reasons." The provisions of the.
To sum up, the fact that the judgment is negative. The determination of 1 made by the defendant is clear, the applicable law is correct and the procedure is legal. Please maintain it according to law.
The defendant Provincial People's Social Welfare Department provided the following evidence to our hospital:
1, industrial injury identification application form; Prove the time when the plaintiff filed the application for work-related injury identification.
2. Haikou Intermediate People's Court (20 16) No.5 J 0 1 administrative judgment at the end of the line; It proves that the plaintiff filed an application for work-related injury identification on March 9, 20 15, and the defendant made a decision not to accept it, which was revoked by Haikou Intermediate People's Court due to insufficient evidence, and ordered the defendant to take specific administrative actions again on the plaintiff's application for work-related injury identification.
3. The medical records of the plaintiff in 302 Hospital; This is to certify that, after receiving the plaintiff's application for work-related injury identification, the defendant learned from the submitted materials that the plaintiff had visited the 30 1 sub-bureau in August, 2065438 and was admitted to the hospital for hepatitis C.
4. Letter of Entrustment Investigation on Work-related Injury Identification (No.[20 15]00 1) issued by the Qiongren Social Work Committee; This is to certify that the defendant, after learning that the plaintiff had been admitted to the 30 1 sub-bureau in August, 2065438, entrusted Sanya Human Resources and Social Security Bureau to retrieve the inpatient medical records.
5. Letter of introduction from Sanya Human Resources and Social Security Bureau; This is to certify that, entrusted by the defendant, Sanya Human Resources and Social Security Bureau sent personnel to the 30 1 sub-bureau on March 20 15 to copy the plaintiff's medical records in August 20 13.
6. Copy and duplicate the medical record approval form; This is to certify that Sanya Human Resources and Social Security Bureau copied the first page of the medical records and admission records of the plaintiff in the 30 1 sub-bureau on March 3, 20 13.
7.EMS domestic standard express mailing list; It is proved that on April 2, 20 15, the defendant received the plaintiff's medical records in the 30 1 branch entrusted by Sanya Human Resources and Social Security Bureau.
8. Decision 1; It is proved that (1) the defendant has fulfilled the administrative judgment No.5 of Haikou Intermediate People's Court (20 16) and made a new specific administrative act against the plaintiff's application for work-related injury identification. Decision No.2 The decision 1 made by the defendant again is not the same fact and reason as the decision 1. [20 15]No. 1 application for work-related injury identification is inadmissible.
9. Delivery receipt; It proves that the defendant served decision No.2004 on the plaintiff. 1 According to legal procedures.
It was found through trial that on March 9, 2065438 18+04 10, the plaintiff was infected with hepatitis C virus when he was operating on a patient in March, 2065438, and was later in the 302 hospital in September 14. On April, 2065438 1 day, the defendant made [20 15]No. 1 decision on the inadmissibility of industrial injury identification application, arguing that the injury caused by the plaintiff's finger puncture on April 10+ 14 had exceeded. The plaintiff refused to accept it and filed an administrative lawsuit with Longhua Court on June 8th, 20th/KLOC-0th/5th. Longhua Court made (20 15) the administrative judgment of Longxing Zichu No.23 on October 8, 2065, revoking the defendant's decision that [20 15] No. The Provincial People's Social Welfare Department refused to accept the judgment and appealed to our hospital. On March 29, 20 16, our hospital made the administrative judgment (20 16) J 0 1, dismissed the appeal, upheld the original judgment and ordered the defendant to make an administrative act again.
The defendant made the decision 1002 on May 27th, 20th 1 6th. According to the Application Form for Work-related Injury Identification and the corresponding supporting materials, the Letter of Entrustment for Work-related Injury Identification submitted by the plaintiff, the letter of introduction, the photocopy approval form, the application form for hospitalization in 30 1 sub-bureau, the first page of hospitalization medical records and medical records. If the plaintiff refuses to accept it, bring this lawsuit.
It is also found out that from August 6, 2065438 to September 3, 2065438, the plaintiff saw a doctor at the branch on October 30, and the final diagnosis part of the discharge letter issued by the hospital on September 20, 2065438. Diagnosis from September 9, 20 14 to September 9, 20 14. On September 14, 302 Hospital recorded in the plaintiff's medical record: "... went to see a doctor in Hainan Branch of 30 1 Hospital and was diagnosed as' cirrhosis C' ...", September. On March 27, 20 15, the defendant entrusted sanya human resources and social security bureau to investigate and verify the plaintiff's medical treatment in the branch office at 30/kloc-0. On March 27th, 20 15, Sanya Human Resources and Social Security Bureau sent staff to the branch office to copy the plaintiff's medical records on March 27th. On April 2, 20 15, the defendant received the above materials mailed to him by Sanya Human Resources and Social Security Bureau.
The above facts are supported by the following evidences: [20 15]No. 1 Decision on Rejection of Work-related Injury Identification Application, Longhua Court (20 15) Longxing No.23 Administrative Judgment, Haikou Intermediate People's Court (20 16) Qiong 0 1. The plaintiff's hospitalization medical records in 30 1 branch, the plaintiff's hospitalization medical records in Hainan Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, the plaintiff's hospitalization medical records in 302 Hospital, the entrusted investigation letter for work-related injury identification (QJSC word [20 15] No.001), the letter of introduction from Sanya Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, the approval form for copying medical records, and EMS.
Our hospital believes that the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance stipulates: "If the employer fails to file an application for work-related injury identification in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the injured employee or his close relatives or trade unions may file an application for work-related injury identification directly with the social insurance administrative department of the co-ordination area where the employer is located within 1 year from the date of accident injury or diagnosis and identification as an occupational disease." The plaintiff believes that the application for work-related injury identification within 1 year from the date of diagnosis in 302 Hospital on September 9, 20 14 should comply with the above provisions. However, according to our hospital's review, the final diagnosis in the letter of introduction for discharge from department 30 1 on September 2, 20 13, the clinical diagnosis and discharge diagnosis in the plaintiff's medical record on September 3, 20 13 all called the plaintiff's illness "type C". In addition, at present, the medical history of September 20 14, 10 in No.302 Hospital, and the admission conditions of September 20 18, 19, and 2065438 all claim that the plaintiff visited the branch of No.302 Hospital and was diagnosed as. Therefore, the plaintiff knows that the latest diagnosis result of "hepatitis C" should be 201September 3 13. The plaintiff filed an application for work-related injury identification with the defendant on March 9, 20 15, which has exceeded the statutory application period 1 year. Therefore, since the plaintiff did not apply for work-related injury identification within 1 year from the date of the accident injury, and did not apply for work-related injury identification within 1 year after knowing the diagnosis result, the defendant made the decision of 1 accordingly, which was in compliance with the law.
To sum up, the plaintiff's claim is unfounded in law, and our court will not support it. According to Article 69 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:
Reject the plaintiff Zhang's claim.
The acceptance fee of this case, 50 yuan, shall be borne by plaintiff Zhang.
If you refuse to accept this judgment, you can file an appeal with our court within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of the other parties to appeal to the Higher People's Court of Hainan Province.