《劳动能力鉴定职工工伤与职业病致残等级》(2014)相关问题研究

Studis on the standard for identifying work ability-gradation of disability caused by work-related injuries and occupational diseases(2014)

《劳动能力鉴定职工工伤与职业病致残等级》,是我国目前伤残评定体系中重要的国家标准,2015年1月1日起,2014版工伤标准正式实施。本文通过对新旧标准的对比,结合工伤保险制度的解读,主要阐述如下观点:1.《工伤标准》就其性质而言,是《工伤保险条例》配套的医学文件,享有独特的修订程序及与之配套的工伤补偿体系;此点与民事案件的人身损害赔偿不同。2.比较新旧标准(2014版与2006版)内容,新版标准有如下进步:1新版标准严格按照GB/T1.1-2009、GB/T1.1-20000.2-2009标准编写的要求,体例形式更加严谨。2新版标准合并大量旧版标准中含义相近似的条款,避免了条款碎片化的缺陷;3新版标准更正/修订大量条款内容(多达100余条),使得标准条款的设置更加合理。3.新版标准依然存在缺陷,体现在1理念上的落后,不能与ICF、GEPI等国际/国外标准相接轨。2独创的"手、足功能缺损评估参考图表"有闭门造车之嫌。3描述关节功能障碍程度的用词不严谨等等。需要指出的是:由于劳动能力鉴定有特定的流程及委托事项要求,此点与一般意义上的司法鉴定有所不同,司法鉴定人及管理部门应对此予以了解。

The Standard for Identifying Work Ability-Gradation of Disability Caused by Work-related Injuries and Occupational Diseases is an important criterion designed by China to assess disability in judicial appraisal. A new criterion, which was legislated in 2014, has been implemented since January 1st, 2015. By comparing the old and the new criteria and combining with an understanding of institution of the disability caused by work-related and occupation disease, this paper elaborates the following propositions. 1. This standard is in nature a complementary medical document to Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurances. It requires special procedure for modifi cation and corresponding compensation system for disability caused by work-related injuries, which makes it different from personal injury compensation in civil cases. 2. Compared with the old standard（2006）, the new standard（2014） has the following improvements： 1 It has strictly followed the rules laid down in GB/T1.1-2009、GB/T1.1-20000.2-2009, rendering the whole system more rigorous. 2 It has integrated the similar and relevant articles in the old standard, eschewing the problem of fragmentation. 3 The new standard has revised many articles（more than 100）, which makes the standard more reasonable. 3. The new standard still has some problems. They embody in： 1 Lagging behind the idea, which is incompatible with the international standards such as ICF, GEPI; 2 Terms like ＂graphic paper for evaluating functional diseases in hands and feet＂ are inaccessible; 3 Some descriptions of the dysfunction of joint remain inaccurate, etc. It is highlighted that because work ability appraisals have specifi c process, it is different from the general sense of judicial authentication, and the judicial appraisers and the management department should understand that.