Defense of industrial injury insurance benefits

Respondent: A, male, Han nationality, born in 194x, 1x, is the father of the deceased E.

Respondent: B, female, Han nationality, born in 195x 1x month, and the mother of the deceased E.

Respondent: C, female, Han nationality, born on X month 198x, wife of the deceased E.

Respondent: D, male, Han nationality, born on X, 200, deceased E.

The appellant (plaintiff of first instance) F Co., Ltd. appealed against the civil judgment of Shenzhen Luohu District People's Court (20 1x) Shen Luo Famin X (Lao Chu ZiNo. 10 1No.). 194x), the respondent made the following reply according to the facts and laws:

First, the court of first instance found that E was an employee of the appellant, and the facts were clear and the evidence was indeed sufficient.

First of all, E is the appellant's employee, as evidenced by the official documents formulated by the state organs according to their functions and powers. The respondent submitted sufficient evidence to prove that E was the appellant's employee when applying for work-related injury identification. Therefore, the Shenzhen Work Injury Certificate (Shen Lao She Zi [200 x] No.41235400x) issued by Shenzhen Labor and Social Security Bureau on June 65438, 2009 identified E's death as a work injury. The appellant refused to accept the conclusion of work-related injury identification and filed administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation successively. The Decision of Administrative Reconsideration of Shenzhen Municipal People's Government [20 10/0] 3x made by Shenzhen Municipal People's Government on October 26th, 20 10 maintained the conclusion of work-related injuries made by Shenzhen Labor and Social Security Bureau. 20 10 on March 2, Shenzhen Futian district people's court made an administrative ruling of (20 1x) Shen fu fa Li zi No. The above administrative ruling came into effect on March 20, 20 10. Therefore, before it is revoked according to law, the conclusion of work-related injuries made by Shenzhen Labor and Social Security Bureau should be used as evidence to identify the employees of the electronic complainant.

Secondly, E is the appellant's employee and has a factual labor relationship with the appellant. E joined the appellant at the end of September 2008 as a coach driver with a monthly salary of 8,000 yuan. The plaintiff paid last month's salary in cash, and the two parties did not sign a labor contract. E The car driven in the event of a traffic accident was managed by the appellant's company, and E received on-the-job training from the company and held a post certificate.

2.e's driving behavior belongs to the behavior of performing work, and the appellant shall bear the treatment of work-related injuries; Whether the appellee has the driving qualification and accident liability recognition is not a legal reason to exclude the enjoyment of work-related injury treatment, and has nothing to do with this case.

First of all, E's driving behavior belongs to work behavior, and the appellant should bear his work-related injury treatment. E, as the appellant's employee, driving a vehicle to engage in transportation is an act of performing work tasks, and the Shenzhen Municipal Bureau of Labor and Social Security has concluded that E's driving accident is a work-related injury, so the appellant should bear his work-related injury treatment.

Secondly, the provisions of the appellant's company and its responsibilities in traffic accidents have nothing to do with this case, nor are they legal reasons for excluding the identification or treatment of work-related injuries. Therefore, the appellant claimed that E violated the provisions on the determination of the appellant's company and accident liability in No.83x judgment of Dongguan First People's Court. X people's court (200x) Dong X legal person X has nothing to do with this case. E. Accidental injuries caused by driving the company's vehicles for work reasons shall be recognized as work-related injuries. Because the appellant did not buy social insurance for him, the company should bear the work-related injury benefits he should enjoy.

Three, the court of first instance according to the Shenzhen city in 2008 labor wage guidance price, as appropriate, the payment of e wages in accordance with the law.

According to Article 16 of the Regulations on Wage Payment in Guangdong Province, the employer shall truthfully prepare the wage payment ledger according to the wage payment cycle. The wage payment ledger shall be kept for at least two years. ? And Article 6 of People's Republic of China (PRC) Labor Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law: In case of labor dispute, the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for their claims. If the evidence related to the disputed matter belongs to the management of the employer, the employer shall provide it; If the employer fails to provide it, it shall bear the adverse consequences? The appellant shall bear the burden of proof for E's salary, otherwise he shall bear the legal responsibility of not being able to provide evidence. Specific to this case, in the case that neither party can prove the actual salary standard of E, the court of first instance referred to the median monthly salary of bus drivers in Shenzhen in 2008 and ruled that E's salary was in compliance with the law.

4. Regarding funeral expenses and living expenses, the respondent may request double indemnity.

The appellant Dongguan Intermediate People's Court (20 1x) issued a civil judgment No.358X in East China Law, and ruled that BOC Insurance Company compensated the respondent for the funeral expenses and the living expenses of the dependents. However, commercial insurance compensation is based on insurance contracts, and industrial injury compensation is based on employees and companies. Labor relations, civil compensation and industrial injury compensation belong to different legal relations, and they are incompatible. The defendant can ask double indemnity.

To sum up, the respondent thinks that the appellant's claim is unfounded and illegal, and requests the court to reject the appellant's claim according to law.

I am here to convey

Shenzhen x-level people's court

Defendant: 20 1 year x month x day.

Reply on the appeal of industrial injury insurance benefits II

Respondent: xx Stone Co., Ltd.

Legal representative:? Title: Chairman of the Board of Directors

Respondent: Li xx

Regarding the case of Li xx, the respondent, v. our company's industrial injury insurance treatment dispute, the respondent believed that the first-instance judgment found the facts clear and the applicable law was correct. Please reject the respondent's appeal according to law and uphold the original judgment.

I. One-time medical subsidies for work-related injuries, one-time disability subsidies and food subsidies for hospitalization.

The court of first instance found that the respondent had been recognized as a work-related injury by the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of surabaya county, and the social insurance department of surabaya county paid the work-related injury insurance benefits of the respondent, so this part of the work-related injury insurance benefits of the respondent should be paid from the work-related injury insurance fund, not by the respondent. This determination is not only a fact, but also in line with the provisions of the Regulations on Industrial Injury Insurance.

The respondent confused the legal concepts of the respondent's failure to pay work-related injury insurance premium and the subject responsible for work-related injury compensation. The industrial accident of the respondent occurred on February 8, 201kloc-0/65438, and the accident occurred during the period when the respondent paid the industrial injury insurance premium. Therefore, one-time medical subsidy for work-related injuries, one-time disability subsidy and hospitalization food subsidy should all belong to the compensation scope of work-related injury insurance fund. In accordance with the provisions of Article 37 and Article 30 of the Regulations on Industrial Injury Insurance, it shall be paid from the industrial injury insurance fund. The reply issued by the maternity insurance section of surabaya county Social Insurance Department submitted by the respondent is wrong, because this case is not an accident during the period of arrears, but an accident during the period of normal payment. This reply is a wrong opinion that goes against the facts and the law.

Second, the economic compensation for the termination of the labor contract.

The respondent resigned voluntarily on September 29, 20 12 and wrote his own resignation report. If the employing unit does not meet the provisions of Article 46 of the Labor Contract Law, the respondent shall not pay the economic compensation for the termination of the labor contract to the respondent. The respondent's request does not conform to the legal provisions, and it does not belong to the same cause of action as the treatment of industrial injury insurance in this case. If the respondent stubbornly insists on his own opinion, he shall claim another right. The original labor arbitration award has long been invalid because of the respondent's prosecution, and the respondent failed to assess the situation. It is obviously inappropriate to carve a boat for a sword at this time.

Three, about the question of the respondent's request for double salary.

The respondent has made it clear that both parties have signed a labor contract as early as September 1 day, 2009, and the term of the labor contract is August 3, 20654381day. The respondent misinterpreted the legal provisions in the Labor Contract Law and the Labor Contract Law that the employer shall not sign a labor contract with the employee within one year from the date of initial employment, and the employer shall pay the employee twice the monthly salary the day after the expiration of one month from the date of employment. In this case, the respondent and the respondent signed a two-year labor contract, and the failure to renew the labor contract after the expiration of the labor contract shall be regarded as the fact that both parties agreed to continue to perform the contract under the original conditions. This situation obviously does not conform to the legal provisions of paying twice the wages to the workers, and the respondent's request has no factual basis and legal basis. This claim of the respondent does not belong to the same cause of action as the treatment of industrial injury insurance in this case. If the respondent insists on his own opinions repeatedly, he shall claim his rights separately.

To sum up, the respondent's appeal was unreasonable, the facts were clearly ascertained in the judgment of first instance, and the applicable law was correct. We request your hospital to reject the respondent's appeal according to law and uphold the original judgment.

Respondent: xx Stone Co., Ltd.

September 7, 2065 438+03