Employees of a company in Beijing are driving a car to a bosses friend.
Mr. Wang, a salesman of a trading company, drove his boss friend after dinner, and was injured in a traffic accident on the road. District People's social bureau decided that Mr. Wang was a work-related injury and was prosecuted by a trading company. Reporters today (April 26th) was informed that the decision of the Xicheng court approved the work injury decision made by the Bureau of human resources and social affairs, and dismissed the prosecution of the trading company. The court of second instance has also upheld this decision.
Zhang Cun cartography
In June last year, the Shunyi District people's Bureau accepted an application for a work-related injury in a trading company. After investigation, the District People's Bureau confirmed that in the evening of December 22, 2017, Mr. Wang, a member of the trade company, accompanied the general manager to dinner at the company's restaurant. After the meal, Mr. Wang drove his guests to Pinggu. A traffic accident occurred on the road, which led to Mr. Wang's cervical spine trauma, upper limb movement disorders, and left forearm soft tissue contusion. District People's social Bureau believes that Mr. Wang's accident injury belongs to the scope of industrial injury identification.
However, after Mr. Wang was identified as a work-related injury, the trade company applied for administrative reconsideration to the Municipal People's Bureau for failing to accept the industrial injury. After the Municipal People's social Bureau maintained the identification of Mr. Wang's work injury, the trade company filed an administrative lawsuit, accusing the municipal and district level two bureau of human resources and social affairs, and demanded the rescission of the industrial injury identification.
Since it is an application filed by the trading company, it is why the people's Bureau has been brought to court.
It turned out that the trade company did not think that Mr. Wang was a work-related injury. The commerce company said in court that on the night of the incident, Mr. Wang joined the chairman and his friends for dinner. After dinner, Mr. Wang insisted on sending his friend to the chairman, not appointed by the boss. Therefore, Mr. Wang was injured in a car accident, which was not related to working hours or work matters, and had nothing to do with his work. Moreover, Mr. Wang's work injury identification form was not submitted by the company. Mr. Wang himself did it by himself, and the official seal was not approved by the company leader.
The Shunyi District people's social Bureau replied that, after investigation and verification by the Bureau, the chairman of the commercial and trade company informed Mr. Wang two times that he had arranged for him to wait for the day after work and prepare to send someone back to Pinggu. Mr. Wang was injured in a car accident when he received a specific assignment assigned by the chairman of the company. Although Mr. Wang is not a full-time driver, his injuries are closely related to the specific tasks assigned by the chairman of the company.
In contrast, the justification of the trade company is not logical. The dinner was held in Shunyi District on the night of the incident. After dinner, Mr. Wang was sent back to Pinggu in the urban area. It is thus clear that Mr. Wang, who was under the guidance of the chairman of the board, did not drink enough wine to complete the mission.
In addition, the trade company did not recognize the industrial injury after applying for the official seal for Mr. Wang, but could not overthrow the fact that Mr. Wang belonged to the industrial injury.
The court held that after receiving the application for work-related injury, the Shunyi District social and social Bureau reviewed the application form and related materials for the work-related injury, and reviewed the materials submitted by the trading company and Mr. Wang, and conducted an investigation and Discussion on Mr. Wang. The Municipal People's social bureau did not make improper decisions after reviewing the work injury decision. The court's request for litigation is lack of factual basis and legal basis, and the court will not support it.