plaintiff: A， Male, born on XXX, Han nationality.

Entrusted litigation agent: A1 Inner Mongolia Lemin Law Firm.

Defendant: B Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, address: XXX, Xianghuang Banner.

Legal representative: XXX, post director.

Entrusted agent ad litem: B1, director of XXX Human Resources and Social Security Bureau.

Entrusted litigation agent: B2, Deputy Director of XXX Human Resources and Social Security Bureau.

Third party: C Road and Bridge Engineering Co., Ltd., address: XXX, Xilinhot.

Legal representative: XXX.

Entrusted agent ad litem: C1, a lawyer of Inner Mongolia Yixiang Law Firm.

Plaintiff A refuses to accept the XX made by Defendant B's Human Resources and Social Security Bureau X "Decision on Not Determining Work Injury", filed an administrative lawsuit to the Court on December 14, 2017. After the case was filed on December 14, 2017, the Court served the defendant with a copy of the indictment and the notice of response on December 18, 2017. The Court formed a collegial panel according to law and heard the case in public on January 22, 2018. Plaintiff A and its entrusted agent ad litem A1, Defendant B's Human Resources and Social Security Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Xianghuang Banner Human Resources and Social Security Bureau) entrusted agent ad litem B1, and the third party XX Company entrusted agent ad litem C1 to attend the lawsuit. The trial of this case has now been concluded.

On October 10, 2017, Defendant B made the No. XXX Decision on Disapproval of Industrial Injury, which found that Applicant A was sent by XX Company to xxx in August 2016 to carry out the construction of village road project and engage in surveying work (the applicant said that he was also engaged in driver work). On September 6, 2016, the applicant went to the construction site of XXX highway project without being assigned by the company manager XXX and the person in charge of XXX Village to Village Project (XXX and XXX proved that on September 4, 2016, the applicant asked for leave to go home to attend the wedding of his brother-in-law on September 8), and the applicant also failed to explain the purpose of going to the construction site of XXX highway project, The white Great Wall pickup truck driving by the excavator driver XXX at the construction site of XXX highway project went to the construction site with XXX to send firecrackers. The applicant drove the vehicle back alone and had an accident. According to the letter of decision, the injury suffered by Comrade A does not conform to the circumstances under Article 14 and Article 15 of the Regulations on Industrial Injury Insurance that determine industrial injury or deemed industrial injury, and now it is decided not to determine or deemed industrial injury.

Plaintiff A claimed that Defendant B claimed that on September 6, 2016, Plaintiff A went to the construction site of XXX project without being assigned by the manager of the third party company, XXX, and the person in charge of the XXX Village to Village Project, and the Plaintiff also failed to explain the purpose of going to the construction site of XXX highway project, because both XXX and XXX said that on September 4, 2016, the Plaintiff had asked for leave to go home to attend the wedding of his brother-in-law on September 8, 2016, Therefore, the decision not to recognize the plaintiff as work-related injury cannot be established according to law. 30. XXX, XXX, XXX are all employees of a third person. They accept the management and control of the third person, provide labor for the third person, and the third person pays labor remuneration for them. They have a legal interest in the third person, and their testimony is not objective, authentic, or exclusive. According to Paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the Regulations on Industrial Injury Insurance and Article 17 of the Measures for the Determination of Industrial Injury, if an employee or his or her immediate family member considers it to be an industrial injury and the employer does not consider it to be an industrial injury, the employer shall bear the burden of proof. The defendant, as an administrative organ, does not review the objective authenticity, legality and relevance of the evidence provided by the third party, and is partial to the subjective assumption that such an objective and irresponsible decision is made only by hearsay, which is unfair and even less legal authority and dignity; Second, the XXX construction site is a new project site opened by a third person. During working hours, the plaintiff was assigned by the legal representative XXX to deliver firecrackers to the site. The situation was in line with the provisions of Article 14 of the Regulations on Industrial Injury Insurance, and the plaintiff should be identified as an industrial injury according to law. Therefore, the plaintiff applied for the revocation of the defendant's No, The defendant shall be ordered to make a new conclusion on the determination of work-related injury to the plaintiff and bear the litigation costs of the case.

Plaintiff A submitted the following evidence for its claim: 1. The Plaintiff's driving license information, the permitted driving model is C1, and the valid time is June 12, 2018. The accident occurred on September 6, 2016, when XXX and XXX were not drivers, so it was proved that the Plaintiff was a driver; 2、 A one-time compensation agreement, which was proposed by a third party to be issued to the plaintiff. The agreement clearly stated that the compensation items were disability employment subsidies, one-time disability subsidies, etc., proving that the plaintiff was injured due to work; 3、 There is no legal basis for the non determination decision, which all infers the facts of the case in speculative language; 4、 The witness testified that the witness XXX confirmed that the plaintiff was assigned by the third legal representative to deliver firecrackers to the Baogedu construction site.

Defendant B's Human Resources and Social Security Bureau argued that, according to the Regulations on Industrial Injury Insurance, injuries caused by accidents during working hours and in the workplace should be recognized as industrial injuries. The plaintiff's workplace is XXX construction site, engaged in measurement work (the applicant said that he also works as a driver). The plaintiff's application for industrial injury identification and the company's responsible person XXX have both proved. The accident occurred at the XXX construction site, which is 50km away from each other. If the plaintiff goes to the XXX construction site, he needs to be assigned by the company manager XXX or the XXX village project leader XXX. After reporting to the XXX construction site, the XXX highway project leader XXX will arrange specific work. After investigation by the defendant, the manager XXX of the company and the person in charge of the XXX Village Access Project proved that the plaintiff was not assigned to work on the XXX highway project site on September 6. XXX, the person in charge of the XXX highway project, proved that the plaintiff was not arranged to drive and work on September 6, but that XXX, the excavator driver of the XXX highway project site, was arranged to drive the white Great Wall truck of the XXX site to the construction site to send firecrackers. The plaintiff's application for identification of work-related injuries and XXX, XXX have both proved. Therefore, the Plaintiff's behavior of taking cars and driving by himself has nothing to do with his work. The above facts do not meet the conditions of workplace and work tasks required in the identification of work-related injuries. To sum up, the defendant's No. XXX decision not to recognize work-related injury is clear in fact, legal in procedure and correct in application of law, and the people's court is requested to maintain it.

The Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Defendant B submitted the following evidence for its claim: 1. The application for identification of work-related injuries submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant proved that the plaintiff was a worker at the XXX construction site, the plaintiff's type of work was surveying, and XXX, the person in charge of the XXX construction site, appointed XXX to drive a white pickup truck to transport firecrackers at the XXX construction site; 2、 The award of the Xilingol League Arbitration Commission, the award for determining labor relations, proving that there is a labor relationship between the plaintiff and a third person; 3、 The transcript of the court trial, proving the authenticity of the testimony of the witness during the court trial; 4、 XXX's investigation record, proving the plaintiff's work location, work tasks, and the basic situation of the accident at XXX's construction site; 5、 Testimony of XX, XXX and XXX, proving the course of the accident and the plaintiff's leave; 6、 A description of company C to prove the course of the accident.

XX Company, the third person, said that the Decision on Disapproval of Industrial Injury made by the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Defendant B had clear facts and legal procedures. Traffic accidents caused by the fault of the plaintiff itself should not be recognized as industrial injury according to Article 14 of the Regulations on Industrial Injury Insurance.

It is found through trial that Plaintiff A is an employee of XX Company, a third person, who accepts the management of the third person, and there is a labor relationship between the two parties. On September 6, 2016, after Plaintiff A, together with XX and XXX, drove a white Great Wall pickup truck to deliver firecrackers to XXX construction site, Plaintiff A drove a white Great Wall pickup truck back alone and was injured in a car accident. A After injury, he went to Beijing Jishuitan Hospital for treatment. The diagnosis was: multiple trauma, traumatic diaphragmatic hernia, multiple rib fractures, bilateral pleural effusion, bilateral lower atelectasis, lung infection, traumatic pneumothorax (bilateral) peritoneal hematoma (right), psoas major muscle injury (right), spinal fracture (T11 left transverse process, T12 vertebral body and accessories, L1 vertebral body and bilateral transverse process, L2 right transverse process). On August 8, 2017, A filled in the application form for industrial injury identification and applied for industrial injury identification. On September 4, 2017, the application was submitted to B Human Resources and Social Security Bureau. On September 12, 2017, B The Human Resources and Social Security Bureau sent a notice of proof to XX Company, informing it to provide the labor contract, written materials for asking for leave, and detailed instructions for A's process of sending firecrackers and returning to the construction site within 15 days, with the certificates and copies of ID cards of key personnel, and detailed instructions for the medical expenses provided. On September 12, 2017, the Bureau of Human Resources and Social Security B asked XXX, the manager of the company, and made a survey record, including the testimony of XXX, the employee of Company C, XXX, the person in charge of the XXX construction site, and the statement issued by XX. On October 10, 2017, the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of B made a decision that XXX should not be recognized as work-related injury. It believed that the injury suffered by A did not conform to the circumstances of identifying work-related injury or deemed work-related injury in Articles 14 and 15 of the Regulations on Work Injury Insurance. Now, it decided not to identify or deemed work-related injury, and delivered the decision to companies A and C. A Not satisfied, and appealed to our court on December 4, 2017.

The Court believes that, according to the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 5 of the Regulations on Industrial Injury Insurance, the social insurance administrative departments of the local people's governments at or above the county level are responsible for the work of industrial injury insurance within their own administrative areas. Therefore, B Human Resources and Social Security Bureau has the authority to take charge of the work injury insurance in its own administrative region, and has the right to make a decision on A's application for identification of work injury.

According to the plea opinions of the parties, the focus of the dispute in this case is whether the facts of the determination of the defendant's decision not to recognize work-related injury are clear and the evidence is sufficient. There was a dispute between the plaintiff and the third party about whether it was during the period of the plaintiff A's leave on September 6, 2016 and whether the plaintiff A went to the XXX construction site for work reasons. According to Article 19 of the Regulations on Industrial Injury Insurance, "if the employees or their close relatives think it is an industrial injury, but the employer does not think it is an industrial injury, the employer shall bear the burden of proof". In this regard, after confirming the occurrence of the accident, the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of defendant B considered that the situation of plaintiff A's injury caused by the accident did not comply with the provisions of Article 14 and Article 15 of the Regulations on Work Injury Insurance to identify work-related injury or deemed work-related injury, and did not recognize work-related injury. The Court believes that the testimony of the defendant B's Human Resources and Social Security Bureau only from the manager XXX of Company B and the person in charge of the XXX construction site of Company B is not enough to determine the fact that the plaintiff A has asked for leave, and the explanation from a third person is not enough to determine the fact that the plaintiff's behavior of commuting to and from the XXX construction site was not assigned by the person in charge of the construction site, Therefore, the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Defendant B made a decision not to confirm without finding out whether Plaintiff A was in the period of asking for leave when the accident occurred and whether the reason for going to and from XXX construction site was working. The facts are unclear and the evidence is insufficient. To sum up, the Court supports the plaintiff A's application for cancellation of the defendant's No. XXX decision not to identify work-related injuries. In view of the fact that the cancellation of the above decision will affect the legitimate rights and interests of A, the Bureau of Human Resources and Social Security of B should re handle A's application for identification of work-related injuries according to law. According to Article 70 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

1、 Cancellation of the Letter of Decision No. XXX Not to Recognize Industrial Injury made by the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Defendant B on October 10, 2017;

2、 The Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Defendant B shall re process the application for determination of work-related injury of Plaintiff A within 60 days from the effective date of this judgment.

The case acceptance fee of 100 yuan shall be borne by the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Defendant B.

If you are not satisfied with this judgment, you can submit a petition of appeal to this court within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of the opposite parties, and appeal to the Xilingol League Intermediate People's Court.

Judge X X

Judge XXXX

People's assessor XXX

May 7, 2018

Clerk XXX

Legal provisions applicable to this case

Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 70 If an administrative act falls under any of the following circumstances, the people's court shall make a judgment on its cancellation or partial cancellation, and may also make a judgment on the defendant to repeat the administrative act:

（1） The main evidence is insufficient;