Does' drunk work death 'necessarily exclude work-related injury recognition? Recently, the People's Court of Miyun District, Beijing, tried a work-related injury dispute case and found that the concentration of carbon monoxide in the pump room was seriously excessive. Even if the employee did not drink alcohol, the poisoning result could not be avoided. The judgment revoked the decision of the human resources and social security department not to recognize the work-related injury. Lao Song is a maintenance worker for a property management company, working in the field of public maintenance. Late one night, the water pump room in the community suddenly malfunctioned, and Old Song rushed to the scene as soon as possible. However, while repairing the gasoline engine water pump in the water pump room, Old Song died unexpectedly. According to judicial appraisal, the ethanol content in Lao Song's blood is as high as 114.6mg/100ml, far exceeding the legal standard for drunkenness. The carbon monoxide detection data showed that its carboxyhemoglobin saturation reached 28.5%, which is consistent with drowning after carbon monoxide poisoning. After the incident, the property management company took the initiative to apply for work-related injury recognition for Lao Song, but the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau decided not to recognize him as having drunk due to the detection of ethanol with a concentration of 114.6mg/100ml in his blood. The property management company disagrees and files a lawsuit with the court. The court held that in this case, although Lao Song drank alcohol during working hours and met the legal standard for drunkenness, carbon monoxide was a colorless, odorless, and tasteless gas that ordinary people could not perceive through smell. Moreover, the concentration of carbon monoxide in the pump room involved in the incident exceeded the standard. Lao Song not only could not smell carbon monoxide through his sense of smell, but also inhaled excessive carbon monoxide during the process of climbing down to the bottom of the pump room through the entrance of the incident pump room, resulting in poisoning and drowning. Therefore, there is no causal relationship between Lao Song's drunkenness and his injuries during working hours. The defendant, the Social Security Bureau, proposed that Lao Song's decision not to recognize work-related injuries based solely on Article 16 of the Work Injury Insurance Regulations was made on the grounds of drunkenness, which constitutes unclear facts and incorrect application of the law. Therefore, it should be revoked and a new decision should be made on the work-related injury recognition application submitted by the property management company. After the judgment, the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau was dissatisfied and appealed. The second instance court rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict. The verdict in this case has now come into effect. The presiding judge of this case, Dai Zuyong, stated that although Article 16 of the Work Injury Insurance Regulations stipulates that "drunkenness shall not be recognized as a work-related injury", it is necessary to make judgments based on specific circumstances in judicial practice. Firstly, the objective environment of the incident pump room is inevitably related to the casualties of Old Song. The concentration of carbon monoxide in the incident pump room exceeded the national standard by 23 times, and it is a colorless and odorless gas. Even if the workers did not drink alcohol, they could not perceive the danger through their senses, and the poisoning result was inevitable. Secondly, the management deficiencies of the property management company are the main cause. The property management company has never identified the hazards of gasoline pumps, developed operating procedures, or conducted safety training. The management personnel have not fulfilled their obligation to investigate hidden dangers, which directly leads to fatal risks in the working environment. Dai Zuyong believes that when workers use their lives to sound the alarm of safety production, the judiciary has the responsibility to penetrate the surface and safeguard the bottom line of rights protection. For workers who are injured or killed while working under the influence of alcohol, it is not a common occurrence that constitutes a work-related injury, and this case is only an exception. Workers should strictly follow the regulations and not drink alcohol during work. Enterprises must effectively fulfill their main responsibility for safety production, improve safety operating procedures, strengthen on-site management, and conduct safety education and training. Both workers and employers should accurately understand the legal standards for determining work-related injuries and safeguard their legitimate rights and interests in accordance with the law. (New Society)