Identification Standards Of "Injury Treated As Work-related Injury" In Judicial Review

Whether the social insurance administrative department can accurately identify the work-related injuries is related to the vital interests of the workers.In judicial practice,there are problems such as the complexity of identification of labor relations,poor convergence,tedious and repetitive procedure of the determination of the work-related injuries,and irrationality of the distribution of evidence responsibility in the process of determination of work-related injuries.In the legal norms concerned about determination of work-related injuries,Article 15 Paragraph 1 Item 2 of the "Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance "(hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations")is regarded as the most complicated clause.The determination of work-related injuries are divided into three layers,which are the situation of work-related injuries,the situation of "injury treated as work-related injury",and the situation that should not be recognized as work-related injury or "injury treated as work-related injury"."Injury treated as work-related injury" is a unified and general reference to the expansion and application of work injury identification standards.It is a supplement to the work injury situation in order to realize the legislative concept of protecting workers.This is also the reason why "injury treated as work-related injury" exceeds the basis of work injury identification.The "injury treated as work-related injury" in the "protection of national interests and public interest activities in disaster relief,disaster relief,etc." as stipulated in Article 15 Paragraph 1 Item 2 of the Regulations is the most special,taking enumerative and The combination of generalized and legislative methods is full of uncertain legal concepts such as "rescue and disaster relief" and "public interest".In reality,the discretionary space for judicial determination,the ambassador for judgment,and the results of work-related injuries are also controversial.Through empirical analysis of the industrial injury administrative cases related to item 2 of "injury treated as work-related injury",it is found that the judges in the judicial trial do not recognize the injury to the employee because of the followingreasons:(1)rigid understanding of the law;(2)Dangerousness and personal do not have a high degree of probabilistic;(3)the occurrence of personal illness and work-related causal relationship is difficult to judge;(4)the formalization of judicial review.On the contrary,the main reasons for the recognition of "identification of work-related injuries" are:(1)the certificate has the advantage of proof;(2)it has a causal relationship with the work;(3)the burden of proof is reversed and the "work-related injury" is presumed.Judging from the verdict of the case of "injury treated as work-related injury",the administrative agency's application of the "injury treated as work-related injury" clause and the court's judicial review criteria for "associating with work-related injuries" need to be unified.In 1996,the "Trial Measures for Industrial Injury Insurance" went to the "Regulations" in 2003 and then to the revision of the "Regulations" in 2010.The "injury treated as work-related injury" clause was baptized by history.The author uses the method of normative interpretation to try to clarify the connotation and extension of the "dissimilar work injury" clause,to explore the social value and normative value contained in the "what is regarded as work-related injury" clause,and to provide legal support for the formulation of the "injury treated as work-related injury" certification standard.In addition,the author explores the type of judicial review theory,the types of cases that are treated as work-related injuries,and the judicial trial thinking.First,through the detailed analysis of the factual and legal issues in the case of "injury treated as work-related injury",it is considered that the examination of factual issues should adopt the combination of rule review and rationality review,and the review of legal issues should be correct.The standard of sex,that is,after considering the opinions of the administrative subject(the opinion of the administrative subject is only a guide),the court independently determines the legal issues and replaces the opinions of the administrative subjects with the correct opinions that they think;the question of the mixture of facts and laws.The review criteria are either high or low,and the review criteria for legal issues should be applied.Secondly,the type of work-injury case of item 2 of "injury treated as work-related injury" is sorted by means of type,and it is divided into actions and individuals who are involved in disaster relief,righteousness,legal obligation or contractual obligation,and fight against illegal criminal acts.There are five categories of behaviors,and each type of situation is further refined to explore which types of situations belong to the "injury treated as work-related injury" situation.Third,from the analysis of the impact of the application of the principle thinking and policy thinking on the judgment results of the cases of "injury treated as work-related injury",the judges determined that "what is regarded as work-related injury" should aim at realizing social justice and safeguarding the rights and interests of workers,or emphasize the role of policy.Obviously,neither of them can be neglected,and the trade-off thinking just realizes the reconciliation of principle thinking and policy thinking.Therefore,the author believes that the trade-off thinking is operable in the case of judges' trials of "case",and accordingly The specific path.In summary,in order to get rid of the myth of the judicial review of "dissimilar work injury",the corresponding referee rules should be issued to summarize the judicial cases of "injury treated as work-related injury".The article explores the system of "injury treated as work-related injury" from the empirical evidence,and finally falls into the value analysis of the legal norm of law,and judges whether the situation of "injury treated as work-related injury" conforms to the legislative purpose and legislative value by the value of the legal norm itself.It attempts to provide guidance rules and value compliance for the judicial review criteria for clarifying the situation of item 2 of "injury treated as work-related injury".