After receiving workers' compensation for pneumoconiosis, can patients still claim civil damages?

Many regions have seen cases supporting "double compensation," but the corresponding amount of work-related injury insurance benefits will be deducted

Reading notes

As a common occupational disease, pneumoconiosis patients can apply for work-related injury recognition after diagnosis of the occupational disease, and thereby obtain workers' compensation. At the same time, in addition to enjoying work-related injury social insurance in accordance with the law, occupational disease patients who, under relevant civil laws, still have the right to compensation, have the right to demand compensation from their employer.

After receiving workers' compensation, can pneumoconiosis patients still claim civil damages from their employer?

A recent interview by the Workers' Daily reporter found that a migrant worker surnamed Liu, originally from Pingxiang City, Jiangxi Province, unfortunately contracted pneumoconiosis at work. After receiving workers' compensation, his claim for civil damages from the company was upheld by the court.

The reporter noted that in recent years, many regions have seen cases supporting "double compensation" of both work-related injury insurance compensation and civil claims for pneumoconiosis patients, but the corresponding amount of work-related injury insurance benefits will be deducted from the personal injury damages items.

Contracting pneumoconiosis but receiving only 80,000 yuan in workers' compensation

From October 2006 to October 2007, Liu worked in coal mining at a coal mine enterprise in Pingxiang, where he was exposed to coal dust; from October 2007 to December 2020, he worked in full-inspection packaging at Guangzhou Jinmou Hardware Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Hardware Company), where he was exposed to dust.

According to Article 35 of the Occupational Disease Prevention and Control Law, for workers engaged in operations exposed to occupational disease hazards, the employer shall organize pre-employment, in-service, and pre-departure occupational health examinations in accordance with the regulations of the health administrative department under the State Council, and shall inform the workers of the examination results in writing. Workers who have not undergone pre-employment occupational health examinations shall not be assigned to operations exposed to occupational disease hazards.

However, Liu stated that the Hardware Company arranged for him to work without conducting a pre-employment occupational health examination as required by relevant laws. In addition, during his work, the Hardware Company failed to provide a working environment that met labor standards, causing him to experience symptoms such as difficulty breathing and chest tightness.

In April 2021, Liu's injury was identified by the Guangzhou Occupational Disease Appraisal Committee as occupational other pneumoconiosis stage I. In June 2021, it was recognized as a work-related injury by the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Nansha District, Guangzhou. In September of the same year, it was appraised by the Guangzhou Labor Capacity Appraisal Committee as level 7 labor dysfunction.

Thereafter, Liu received 80,000 yuan in work-related injury insurance benefits, including a one-time disability subsidy, issued by the social security fund. Because Liu's labor relationship with the Hardware Company had not yet been terminated, he did not receive a one-time medical subsidy or one-time employment subsidy.

However, Liu believed that since he had contracted pneumoconiosis and could not engage in his original work, this compensation was insufficient to make up for the harm he suffered. He therefore filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Nansha District, Guangzhou, demanding that the Hardware Company pay disability compensation, nursing fees, hospital meal subsidies, and other items totaling more than 400,000 yuan.

First-instance judgment: company bears 30% of compensation liability

In hearing the case, the Nansha District People's Court held that there were two key issues: whether Liu could file the lawsuit after receiving work-related injury insurance benefits; and whether the appraisal conclusion on the level of labor dysfunction could be adopted.

Liu's agent, Wan Weiqiang, a lawyer at Guizhou Yutai Law Firm, told the reporter that according to Article 58 of the Occupational Disease Prevention and Control Law, occupational disease patients, in addition to enjoying work-related injury social insurance in accordance with the law, who under relevant civil laws still have the right to compensation, have the right to demand compensation from their employer.

In addition, the Nansha District People's Court held that, according to Article 25 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases, the basis for calculating the grade of personal injury compensation items may be either the disability grade or the degree of loss of labor capacity. Therefore, in this case, Liu's relevant losses could be calculated based on the appraisal conclusion on the level of labor dysfunction.

"Work-related injury compensation applies the no-fault principle, but personal injury compensation is different. It requires the application of the liability attribution principle and comprehensive consideration of the degree of fault of the infringer and the specific circumstances of the infringing act," said Chen Jianfeng, a lawyer at Beijing Changhong Law Firm. To make the Hardware Company bear civil compensation liability, it was necessary to prove that the Hardware Company was at fault.

During the trial, the Hardware Company provided workplace testing reports for the company after 2021, intended to prove that the test results for occupational disease hazard factors at Liu's post did not exceed the prescribed occupational exposure limits.

In August 2023, the Nansha District People's Court held that the workplace testing reports provided by the Hardware Company could appropriately reduce the defendant's liability, but the reports were commissioned unilaterally by the company, and the defendant had not submitted evidence proving that it had fulfilled Article 35 of the Occupational Disease Prevention and Control Law. Therefore, liability could not be completely exempted. In light of the actual circumstances of the case and the facts ascertained at trial, the court determined that the Hardware Company should bear 30% of the compensation liability for Liu's losses. After deducting the one-time disability subsidy already paid by the social security fund, the court ordered the Hardware Company to pay Liu a total of 126,500 yuan in various compensations.

Company was at fault and ultimately bore 80% of compensation liability

Liu was dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and filed a lawsuit with the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court. In hearing the case, the court held that the occupational exposure limit refers to the permissible exposure level at which long-term repeated exposure during occupational activities will not cause adverse health effects in the vast majority of exposed persons. Accordingly, a qualified test result does not mean that the production environment is absolutely safe, nor does it mean that it will not cause adverse health effects in all exposed persons. Moreover, the Hardware Company did not submit testing materials on occupational disease hazard factors in the workplace for 2012 and earlier, making it impossible to determine the situation regarding occupational disease hazard factors from 2007 to 2012. According to the testing reports after 2012 submitted by the Hardware Company, although total dust and other indicators did not exceed standards, productive dust was indeed present, and occupational disease hazard factors existed.

However, during the trial, the Hardware Company argued that Liu was not directly exposed to large amounts of dust while working at the company, and that his occupational disease was most likely caused by exposure to dust and coal seams while working at the Pingxiang coal mine.

In this regard, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court held that Liu was exposed to occupational disease hazard factors during his mining work, but in this case he did not submit occupational health examination materials from the time he left that post. Meanwhile, the Hardware Company, despite the presence of dust-related occupational disease hazard factors, also failed to conduct a pre-employment occupational health examination for Liu. Both parties were responsible for the failure to ascertain Liu's health condition when he joined the Hardware Company. In addition, Liu worked at a coal mine in Pingxiang for 1 year, a relatively short period. By the time Liu's lung changes reached the imaging manifestations of stage I pneumoconiosis, Liu had worked at the Hardware Company for 13 years and 1 month, a relatively long period, during part of which the situation regarding occupational disease hazard factors was unclear, and during part of which testing reports were available for reference regarding occupational disease hazard factors.

In summary, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court determined that the Hardware Company should bear 80% of the compensation liability for Liu's losses. In February 2024, the court ordered the Hardware Company to compensate Liu a total of 318,500 yuan for various losses.

"In recent years, Guangdong, Shanxi, Zhejiang, and many other places have seen cases supporting 'double compensation' of work-related injury insurance compensation and civil claims for pneumoconiosis patients, but the premise is that the company is at fault, and the corresponding amount of work-related injury insurance benefits will be deducted from the personal injury damages items," Chen Jianfeng said. In this case, Liu successfully defended his rights, providing a reference for other pneumoconiosis patients.