Court Upholds CNY 190,895.50 in Worker’s Injury Claim
In a recent dispute over workplace injury compensation, a court in Eastern China City ruled on the proper calculation of a steelworker’s benefits. The court largely upheld an arbitration award that required the employer to pay over 190,000 yuan in lump-sum compensation plus ongoing monthly disability allowances. The case centered on how to determine the worker’s average wage when he had been employed for less than a full year.
Mr. Wang began working for Eastern China City Materials Co., Ltd. as a steel operator on April 1, 2010. On May 26, 2010, he fell from a furnace platform and suffered severe head and chest injuries. The local labor bureau certified the injury as work-related. Mr. Wang was hospitalized for 162 days and later for another 153 days. Medical evaluations rated him as having a grade two disability with full nursing dependency. The company paid most medical costs and provided 25,409.92 yuan in living expenses. In October 2011, Mr. Wang sought arbitration for full work injury benefits.
The arbitration hearing examined wage records, medical reports, and witness testimony. The company presented two co-workers who testified that they voluntarily gave Mr. Wang 840 yuan in May 2010 to compensate for his four missed workdays that month. The company argued this subsidy should not count toward Mr. Wang’s average wage. The arbitration panel rejected that argument and calculated his monthly wage at 5,073.88 yuan. The panel then awarded 190,895.50 yuan in total compensation plus a monthly disability allowance of 3,211.20 yuan starting June 2011. The company filed a lawsuit challenging the wage calculation and the scope of benefits.
The court found that Mr. Wang’s actual earnings for April and May 2010 were 5,197.35 yuan and 4,950.40 yuan respectively. It held that the co-worker subsidy did not reduce Mr. Wang’s May wage because, under the principle of equal pay for equal work, his month’s earnings remained 4,950.40 yuan. Using the two-month average, the court confirmed his personal wage as 5,073.88 yuan. The court then listed the allowable benefits: medical expenses of 2,115.87 yuan, assistive device costs of 2,598 yuan, nursing care for 379 days at 83.97 yuan per day (total 31,824.63 yuan), inpatient meal subsidy of 4,695 yuan, appraisal fee of 560 yuan, transportation cost of 2,000 yuan, 12 months of sick leave pay (60,886.56 yuan), and a one-time disability payment of 22 months’ wage (111,625.36 yuan). The court also ordered the company to pay the difference between the monthly disability allowance from the social insurance fund and the full 85% of his wage – a monthly shortfall of 3,211.20 yuan – starting from June 2011.
According to the Work Injury Insurance Regulations, when a worker has been employed for less than 12 months, the average wage is based on the actual months worked. The court rejected the company’s request to re-evaluate the disability grade, finding the original assessment proper. On the issue of monthly living care fees, the court noted that those are paid by the social insurance fund, not the employer. It also ruled that both parties must continue paying social insurance contributions as long as the employment relationship exists. The company’s claim that the worker’s wage was artificially high did not hold because the evidence showed the amounts were based on piece-rate production.
This case underscores the importance of accurately documenting wages for short-term employees, particularly when calculating work injury benefits. Employers should be aware that co-worker subsidies intended to help an injured colleague may still be counted as part of the worker’s regular earnings under Chinese law. The ruling also clarifies the employer’s responsibility to make up the difference between social insurance payments and the statutory disability allowance. Practical note: companies should ensure they maintain clear payroll records and timely social insurance contributions to avoid disputes over post-injury compensation.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.