1. 首页
  2. 法律委托案例
  3. 重庆某某某某有限责任公司诉刘某某工伤保险待遇纠纷案

重庆某某某某有限责任公司诉刘某某工伤保险待遇纠纷案

重庆某某某某有限责任公司诉刘某某工伤保险待遇纠纷案璧山县人民法院民事判决书(2012)璧法民初字第00562号原告重庆某某某某有限责任公司。法定代表人王某某,董事长。委托代理人朱某,重庆某某律师事务所律师。委托代理人徐某某,重庆某某律师事务所律师。被告刘某某。委托代理人刘某某,璧山县法律援助中心律师。委托代理人刘某某。原告重庆某某某某有限责任公司(以下简称某某公司)与被告刘某某工伤保险待遇纠纷一案,本院立案受理后,依法由代理审判员杨波独任审判,适用简易程序公开开庭进行了审理。原告红旗公司的委托代理人徐远帆,被告刘某某及其委托代理人刘筱燕、刘大生到庭参加了诉讼。本案现已审理终结。原告诉称,被告系退休后被鉴定为老工伤的职工,原告与被告已于2010年...

重庆某某某某有限责任公司诉刘某某工伤保险待遇纠纷案

璧山县人民法院

民事判决书

(2012)璧法民初字第00562号

原告重庆某某某某有限责任公司。

法定代表人王某某,董事长。

委托代理人朱某,重庆某某律师事务所律师。

委托代理人徐某某,重庆某某律师事务所律师。

被告刘某某。

委托代理人刘某某,璧山县法律援助中心律师。

委托代理人刘某某。

原告重庆某某某某有限责任公司(以下简称某某公司)与被告刘某某工伤保险待遇纠纷一案,本院立案受理后,依法由代理审判员杨波独任审判,适用简易程序公开开庭进行了审理。原告红旗公司的委托代理人徐远帆,被告刘某某及其委托代理人刘筱燕、刘大生到庭参加了诉讼。本案现已审理终结。

原告诉称,被告系退休后被鉴定为老工伤的职工,原告与被告已于2010年3月16日达成一次性伤残补助金赔偿协议,并按照协议履行完毕。2010年12月10日被告请求按2009年社平工资的60%给付一次性伤残补助金,璧山县劳动争议仲裁委员会作出璧劳仲案字(2011)第9号仲裁裁决书,裁决按该标准补足被申请人一次性伤残补助金。原告与被告在2010年3月16日按相关政策进行了处理,是不属于适用渝人社发(2010)168号文件规定的工伤待遇范围。原告不服该裁决特向法院提出起诉。请求判令:1、原告不支付被告一次性伤残补偿金5135.76元;2、本案诉讼费由被告承担。

被告辩称,1、本案被告诉本案原告的工伤待遇纠纷案,要求本案原告支付本案被告伤残补助金,仲裁委已作出了裁决,原告不服,起诉至法院,原告被驳回诉请后,应提起上诉,并不是申请撤销。该裁决是正确的,已发生法律效力,原告无权再起诉。2、双方2010年3月16日签订的一次性伤残补助金赔偿协议中的伤残补助金的计算,以被告领取的养老金为标准,但被告领取的养老金比社平工资的60%要低,因此该协议中以被告领取的养老金为标准计算的一次性伤残补助金的约定部分,违反了《工伤保险条例》第64条的强制性规定,故是无效的。渝人社发(2010)168号文件的规定与《工伤保险条例》的规定也是一致的,被告要求按社平工资的60%计算一次性伤残补助金的主张是符合法律规定的,综上,请求法院以劳动仲裁委的仲裁裁决书所确定的数额标准进行判决。

经审理查明,被告2008年之前退休,退休前在原告公司先后从事掘进、地面矸砖工作。2010年1月29日璧山县劳动鉴定委员会就被告的伤残作出璧劳鉴初字(2010)77号《工伤职工劳动能力鉴定(确认)结论通知书》,鉴定结论:伤残等级为陆级,无护理依赖。此后,原告与被告就刘某某工伤问题达成《重庆某某某某有限责任公司工伤职工赔偿协议》,约定由原告对被告的工伤问题一次性解决:一、伤残补助金14个月,1181.16元14=16536.24元;二、医疗补助金10个月,2248元10=22480元;以上金额合计人民币39016.24元,由刘某某出据领取,今后被告不得以任何理由向原告索取任何费用。该协议原告公司加盖了公章,被告在乙方签字处签名。赔偿协议落款时间为2010年3月16日。其后,刘某某在原告处领取了该笔39016.24元款项。

2010年12月10日被告等25人向璧山县劳动仲裁委员会提出仲裁申请,请求事项为:请求被申请人按照2009年重庆市职工月平均工资的60%为基数给付一次性伤残补助金。璧山县劳动争议仲裁委员会于2011年3月4日作出了璧劳仲案字(2011)第9号仲裁裁决书。原告不服裁决,曾向本院起诉,被本院裁定驳回起诉后,原告又向重庆市第一中级人民法院申请撤销璧劳仲案字(2011)第9号仲裁裁决书。2011年10月30日重庆市第一中级人民法院以(2011)渝一中法民初字第00193号民事裁定书,裁定驳回原告申请,并告知当事人可以自收到裁定书之日起十五日内就劳动争议事项向重庆市璧山县人民法院提起诉讼。其后,原告提起本案诉讼。

审理中,双方就被告属于工伤、被告于2009年进行职业病鉴定和工伤认定均无异议,对被告2008年、2009年的月平均养老金(即退休工资)分别为1016.19元、1181.19元无异议。被告就一次性伤残补助金支付请求,称依据2009年重庆社平月工资2580元的60%计算,原告应付被告一次性伤残补助金21672元,现要求补足差额5135.76元。

以上事实,有原告提交的璧劳仲案字(2011)第9号仲裁裁决书、(2011)渝一中法民初字第00193号民事裁定书、时间为2010年3月16日的《工伤赔偿协议》,有被告提交的工伤职工劳动能力鉴定(确认)结论通知书、红旗煤焦公司退休职工一览表、吴春华等21人养老金情况表,以及原、被告双方的法庭陈述,经庭审质证,足以认定。

本院认为,被告因被诊断为尘肺I期,构成工伤陆级伤残的事实成立。该伤残鉴定确定于2010年1月29日,原告作为用人单位应当依照《工伤保险条例》的规定和相关文件规定向被告支付工伤待遇。

《工伤保险条例》附则部分规定的本条例所称本人工资,是指工伤职工因工作遭受事故伤害或者患职业病前12个月平均月缴费工资。本人工资高于统筹地区职工平均工资300%的,按照统筹地区职工平均工资的300%计算;本人工资低于统筹地区职工平均工资60%的,按照统筹地区职工平均工资的60%计算的内容,系行政法规的强制性规定,本案中原、被告双方2010年3月16日签订的《工伤赔偿协议》中对一次性伤残补助金赔偿部分,以被告2009年领取的月均养老金1181.19元为计算标准,但该计算标准低于2008年度全市职工月平均工资为2248.75元的60%即1349.25元,因此该协议对一次性伤残补助金的约定部分,违反了《工伤保险条例》这一行政法规的上述强制性规定,应认定为无效。

被告仲裁申请的请求事项为支付一次性工伤伤残补助金,该请求事项符合《工伤保险条例》中工伤保险待遇项目,原告应当承担向被告支付一次性伤残补助金的责任。被告属于退休职业病人员,其于2009年进行了职业病鉴定、工伤认定,根据渝人社发(2010)168号文件即《重庆市人力资源和社会保障局关于职工退休后被诊断为职业病工伤待遇问题的通知》中四、执行时限。本通知自2010年10月1日起执行。本通知印发前,退休职工职业病人员已按政策进行处理的不再重新处理的规定,因无证据证明被告的职业病工伤待遇已按政策进行了处理,故被告的职业病工伤一次性伤残补助金待遇应当适用渝人社发(2010)168号文件规定和《工伤保险条例》的规定处理。渝人社发(2010)168号文件第二项工伤待遇一次性伤残补助金计发标准(一)中规定一次性伤残补助金,以被初次诊断为职业病时本人领取的养老待遇高于被诊断或鉴定为职业病时全市上年度职工月平均工资300%的,按全市上年度职工月平均工资300%为计算基数;低于全市上年度职工月平均工资60%的,按全市上年度职工月平均工资60%为计算基数,被告的职业病鉴定时间为2009年,其上年度即2008年度重庆市职工月平均工资为2248.75元,因其2008年、2009年的月平均养老金(即退休工资)分别为1016.19元、1181.19元,均低于2008年度重庆市职工月平均工资2248.75元的60%即1349.25元,即应按照该1349.25元/月为计算基数。因被告是在新《工伤保险条例》(2010年12月20日公布,2011年1月1日实施)实施之前提出的仲裁申请,本案应当按照原《工伤保险条例》的规定适用,即陆级伤残的一次性伤残补助金为14个月计算,即1349.25元/月14个月=18889.5元。原告应支付被告一次性伤残补助金18889.5元,由于对该笔工伤保险待遇费用,被告刘某某在原告处领取了16536.24元,故原告还应当支付给被告一次性伤残补助金差额为18889.5元-16536.24元=2353.26元。

Company of such-and-such and such-and-such finite liability appeals to Chongqing Liu is such-and-such desk of dispute of wage of inductrial injury insurance

Court of people of county of hill of a round flat piece of jade with a hole in its center

Civil judgment

(The word at the beginning of 2012) Bi Famin the 00562nd

Accuser Chongqing is such-and-such and such-and-such finite liability company.

Legal representative king is such-and-such, president.

Attorney Zhu Mou, chongqing is such-and-such attorney office solicitor.

Attorney Xu is such-and-such, chongqing is such-and-such attorney office solicitor.

The accused Liu is such-and-such.

Attorney Liu is such-and-such, law of county of hill of a round flat piece of jade with a hole in its center helps central lawyer.

Attorney Liu is such-and-such.

Accuser Chongqing is such-and-such and such-and-such finite liability company (the following abbreviation is such-and-such company) one desk of dispute of wage of insurance of as such-and-such as the accused Liu inductrial injury, after this academy put on record is accepted, hold the post of adjudgement alone by acting judge Yang Bo lawfully, applicable and simple and easy program made public open a court session to undertake cognizance. The attorney Xu Yuanfan of company of accuser red flag, some and Xiao Yan of some its attorney Liu, Liu gave birth to the accused Liu to front courtyard to join suit greatly. This case already was tried now terminative.

Tell to say formerly, be by appraisal after the accused department is emeritus the worker of old inductrial injury, accuser and the accused already were reached on March 16, 2010 one-time disable grant-in-aid compensates for an agreement, fulfill according to the agreement end. The accused requested to press on December 10, 2010 the company averaged salary 2009 60% to Fu Yi second sex disables grant-in-aid, dispute of labor of county of hill of a round flat piece of jade with a hole in its center arbitrates committee makes word of case of intermediate of fatigue of a round flat piece of jade with a hole in its center (2011) arbitrates the 9th number adjudication book, adjudication presses this standard complemental by the applicant one-time disable grant-in-aid. Accuser and the accused undertook handling by relevant policy on March 16, 2010, it is not to belong to company of applicable change person to send (the range of inductrial injury pay that 2010)168 date file sets. Accuser refuses to obey this adjudication puts forward to sue to the court especially. The request sentences your: 1, accuser does not pay the accused one-time disable filling indemnity this 5135.76 yuan of;2, case legal cost is assumed by the accused.

The accused argue says, 1, the desk of dispute of inductrial injury wage that this case is told this case prosecutor, ask this case prosecutor pays this case the accused to disable grant-in-aid, arbitral appoint already made adjudication, accuser refuses to obey, sue to the court, after appeal of accuser out of court, should mention appeal, not be application cancel. This adjudication is correct, already produced legal effectiveness, accuser has no right to be sued again. 2, what both sides signed on March 16, 2010 is one-time disable grant-in-aid compensation agreement disables mediumly the computation of grant-in-aid, the old-age pension that gets with the accused is a standard, but the old-age pension that the accused gets averages salary than the company 60% want low, the old-age pension that gets with the accused in this agreement accordingly is standard calculative one-time disable the conventional part of grant-in-aid, disobeyed " byelaw of inductrial injury insurance " the 64th mandatory regulation, reason is invalid. Change person company is sent (the regulation of 2010)168 date file and " byelaw of inductrial injury insurance " the regulation also is consistent, the 60% computation that the accused asks to average salary by the company are one-time disable the view of grant-in-aid is regulation of be good law, on put together, request court arbitrates with labor appoint the number level with certain place of arbitral adjudication book has a court decision.

Find out via cognizance, the accused retires before 2008, before retiring, in accuser the company pursues job of brick of Gan of driving, ground early or late. County of hill of a round flat piece of jade with a hole in its center worked on January 29, 2010 appraisal committee with respect to the accused disable make the word at the beginning of ancient bronze mirror of fatigue of a round flat piece of jade with a hole in its center (2010)77 date " appraisal of ability of labor of inductrial injury worker (affirm) conclusion advice note " , appraisal conclusion: Disable grade is land class, without nurse depend on. After this, accuser and the accused are reached with respect to problem of Liu such-and-such inductrial injury " worker of inductrial injury of company of such-and-such and such-and-such finite liability compensates for Chongqing agreement " , the agreement is opposite by accuser the inductrial injury problem of the accused is one-time solve: One, disable grant-in-aid 14 months, 1181.16 yuan of 14=16536.24 yuan; 2, medical treatment grant-in-aid 10 months, 2248 yuan of 10=22480 yuan; above amount is total RMB 39016.24 yuan, by Liu Mou some goes out according to getting, the accused will demand any fee to accuser with any reason henceforth. Firm of this agreement prosecutor built official seal, the accused signs in Party B office sign. Time of compensatory agreement inscribe is on March 16, 2010. Ever since, liu is such-and-such this are gotten in prosecutor office 39016.24 yuan of money.

The labor of county of hill of 25 people Xiangbi such as the accused arbitrated committee offers arbitral application on December 10, 2010, request item is: Request by the applicant according to Chongqing city worker is mean monthly 2009 of salary 60% to Fu Yi for base second sex disables grant-in-aid. Dispute of labor of county of hill of a round flat piece of jade with a hole in its center arbitrates committee made word of case of intermediate of fatigue of a round flat piece of jade with a hole in its center on March 4, 2011 (2011) arbitrates the 9th number adjudication book. Accuser refuses to obey adjudication, ever sued to this academy, after be being rejected to sue by this academy ruling, accuser to Chongqing city court of the first intermediate people applies for word of case of intermediate of fatigue of cancel a round flat piece of jade with a hole in its center (2011) arbitrates the 9th number adjudication book. On October 30, 2011 the first intermediate people of Chongqing city court with (2011) change one Sino-French civilian first word book of the 00193rd civil ruling, the ruling rejects accuser application, since the day that tells party to be able to get ruling book oneself controversy item works inside 15 days to to lodge a complaint of court of people of county of hill of Chongqing city a round flat piece of jade with a hole in its center. Ever since, accuser mentions this case lawsuit.

In cognizance, both sides belongs to inductrial injury, the accused to undertook 2009 occupational disease appraisal and inductrial injury are maintained with respect to the accused all consentient, to the accused 2008, 2009 mean monthly annuities (retire namely salary) it is 1016.19 yuan respectively, 1181.19 yuan consentient. The accused is one-time disable grant-in-aid pays a request, weigh a basis Chongqing company made the same score monthly wages 2009 2580 yuan 60% computation, accuser deals with the accused one-time disable grant-in-aid 21672 yuan, ask now complemental balance 5135.76 yuan.

Above fact, the word of case of intermediate of fatigue of a round flat piece of jade with a hole in its center that accuser is referred (2011) arbitrates the 9th number adjudication book, (2011) change one Sino-French civilian first book of the 00193rd civil ruling, time is the word March 16, 2010 " inductrial injury compensates for an agreement " , the identification of force of kinetic energy of fatigue of inductrial injury worker that the accused is referred (affirm) Jiao Gong of coal of conclusion advice note, red flag manages the situation of 21 people pension such as retired worker schedule, Wu Chunhua is expressed, and the judicial allegation of both sides of former, the accused, via qualitative card of front courtyard careful, enough is maintained.

This academy thinks, because the accused is diagnosed to be pneumoconiosis I period, the fact that makes class of inductrial injury land disable holds water. Should disable appraisal is affirmatory on January 29, 2010, accuser regards choose and employ persons as the unit ought to according to " byelaw of inductrial injury insurance " regulation and relevant file regulation pay inductrial injury salary to the accused.

" byelaw of inductrial injury insurance " this byelaw place that supplementary articles part provides calls him salary, it is to because the job suffers before the accident is harmed or contracting occupational disease 12,point to inductrial injury worker mean monthly lunar capture expends salary. This person pay prep above plans as a whole area worker is average salary of 300% , according to plan as a whole area worker is average 300% computation him; of salary salary under as a whole area worker is average salary of 60% , according to plan as a whole area worker is average the 60% calculative content of salary, those who fasten administrative regulations is mandatory regulation, both sides of this case Central Plains, the accused signed on March 16, 2010 " inductrial injury compensates for an agreement " in right one-time disable grant-in-aid recoups a portion, the month that received 2009 with the accused all annuities is computational standard 1181.19 yuan, but this computation standard under 2008 year whole city worker is mean monthly salary is 2248.75 yuan 60% namely 1349.25 yuan, this agreement is accordingly right one-time disable the conventional part of grant-in-aid, disobeyed " byelaw of inductrial injury insurance " of this one administrative regulations afore-mentioned mandatory regulation, should maintain to disable.

The request item that the accused arbitration applies disables to pay one-time inductrial injury grant-in-aid, this request item is accorded with " byelaw of inductrial injury insurance " in project of pay of inductrial injury insurance, accuser ought to be assumed pay to the accused one-time disable the responsibility of grant-in-aid. The accused belongs to personnel of emeritus occupational disease, its undertook 2009 occupational disease appraisal, inductrial injury is maintained, send according to change person company (2010)168 date file namely " the announcement that after resource of Chongqing city labor power and social security bureau retire about the worker, is diagnosed to be issue of wage of occupational disease inductrial injury " in 4, executive time limit. Inform to be carried out since October 1, 2010 oneself originally. Before informing print and distribute originally, personnel of retired worker occupational disease already undertook handling by policy no longer the regulation of retexture, because do not have evidence to prove the pay of occupational disease inductrial injury of the accused already pressed policy to undertake handling, the occupational disease inductrial injury of reason the accused is one-time disable grant-in-aid pay ought to company of applicable change person is sent (2010)168 date file sets and " byelaw of inductrial injury insurance " formulary processing. Change person company is sent (2010)168 date file pay of the 2nd inductrial injury is one-time disable grant-in-aid plan hair standard (one) in the provision is one-time disable grant-in-aid, with by the first time diagnose the treatment of provide for the aged that when be occupational disease, oneself receive worker of the year on whole town is mean monthly when prep above is diagnosed or appraisal is occupational disease salary of 300% , go up by whole town year worker is mean monthly salary 300% go up under whole town for computational base; year worker is mean monthly salary of 60% , go up by whole town year worker is mean monthly salary 60% for computational base, the time of occupational disease appraisal of the accused is 2009, the year on its namely worker of city of 2008 year Chongqing is mean monthly salary is 2248.75 yuan, because of its 2008, 2009 mean monthly annuities (retire namely salary) it is 1016.19 yuan respectively, 1181.19 yuan, all under worker of city of 2008 year Chongqing mean monthly salary 2248.75 yuan 60% namely 1349.25 yuan, answer namely according to this 1349.25 yuan / the month is computational base. Because the accused is to be in new " byelaw of inductrial injury insurance " (announced on December 20, 2010, carried out on January 1, 2011) the arbitral application that before carrying out, offers, this case ought to according to former " byelaw of inductrial injury insurance " the regulation is applicable, namely what land class disables is one-time disable grant-in-aid is calculated for 14 months, namely 1349.25 yuan / month 14 months =18889.5 yuan. Accuser should pay the accused one-time disable grant-in-aid 18889.5 yuan, because be opposite expenses of salary of insurance of this inductrial injury, the accused Liu is such-and-such 16536.24 yuan are gotten in prosecutor office, reason accuser still ought to pay the accused one-time disable grant-in-aid balance is 18889.5 yuan - 16536.24 yuan of =2353.26 yuan.

本文来自投稿,不代表君士君法律咨询网立场,如若转载,请注明出处:http://www.junshijun.com/wts/6.html