补充工伤保险≠社会工伤保险

补充工伤保险≠社会工伤保险 补补补?补补补充工保社会工保 工辞退伤伤伤伤(一次性残就助金伤伤伤伤伤伤伤):商保伤伤伤公司了后伤伤伤,用人位依然不能免除付伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 作者:国淮伤伤伤 伤伤伤自:深圳法制 根据2004年1月生效的《工保条例》及广省工保伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤条例的定,工生工事故后,除了按社保付伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 外,用人位必支付一次性工辞退。此,一伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 些保公司打出广告,指出只要充工保,伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 一旦生工,一次性工辞退将由保公司来承担。伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 然而日前的一起案件却用人位提了一个醒。伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤法院,商充工保并不等同于社会工保, 并不能免除用人位支付一次性工辞退的。伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 正文:礼品厂向保充工保补补补补补补补补补 据宝安区港礼品厂有人介,伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤2003年8月份,他突然伤伤伤接到某保公司一份通知。通知称,伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤2004年1月起施的《工保伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤条例》定,用人位需支付一次性工医助金和残就助金伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤(一次性工辞退伤伤伤伤),工的利益,减企担,公司伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤2003年9月1日推出企充工保。伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤通知明,用人位到指定行交保金后, 一旦生工事故,根据《工保条例》定由用伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 人位支付的一次性医助金和残就助金将伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 由保公司担。并指出,理充工保是了减伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 企担,减少因工医助金和残就助金引的各。伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 考到新的《工保条例》不久后即将施,伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 再加上禁不住保公司的游,伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤2003年9月4日,港礼品厂与某保公伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤司了体充工意外害保伤伤“伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤”伤。 补补补补补补补补补补补到保公司付金再告工厂 2003年9月23日,就在向保公司充工保后的同伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤一个月,港礼品厂的工唐某突然生工,后于同年伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤11月17日定伤伤伤10伤伤残。2003年12月11日某保公司按定向唐某支付了一次性工辞退伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤9408元。12月16日,社保局按定向唐某支付了一次性残助金伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤14112元。 收到款后,唐某向港礼品厂写了一条,并伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 在条上名、按指印。伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 然而2004年3月2日,唐某向宝安区争仲裁委会申仲伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤裁。唐某称,其生工事故后,被人港公司除伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 支付住院伙食助、住院期工津和助其理一次伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤性残疾助金和商保外,工辞退分文未付。伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 与厂方商无果,因此求裁决港公司支付其一次性工辞退伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤9408元。 伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤此,港公司极不理解。一次性工辞退已 伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤由保公司支付唐某,何其又工辞退分文 未付,不是重付,道保公司以商保理伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 的方式支付一性工辞退不能抵消由用人位支付的一次性工辞退,伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤仲裁及一:受工求未支持补补补补补补补补补补补补 去年4月7日,宝安区争仲裁委理了此案。伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 仲裁庭,申人参加的充工保不同于一般伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 的商保,企参加充保后将不可的嫁伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 保公司,保障了工和企的利益。于申人已伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤取社保部的一次性残疾助金及充工保部 伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤的一次性辞退,被人已申人理了手,符合 《广省社会工保条例》及其施的定,并伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 裁决回申人的申求。伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤于仲裁庭的裁决,唐某不服,随即向宝安区法院起,求也是要求法院判决被告港公司支付其一次性辞退伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤9408元。 宝安区法院,工生后,原告上已取了一次性工辞退伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤9408元,然用是由保公司而非被告支付,但保伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 公司支付用是基于被告主投保的充工保,伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤而非原告投保的一般商保。伤伤伤伤 作用人方的被告,投保充工保并非其伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 尽的法定,其投保的目的是将支付一次性工辞伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 退的移保公司。在保公司支付了用伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤原告后,被告所承担的支付亦即告履行。原告基伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤于同一事由,就同一目要求重受,由被告再次支伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤付,不符合法律定的公平合理原。一法院回了原告的求。伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤补补补补补补补补补补补补补补补补补补:充商保不能免除用人位 伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤于一法院的判决,原告唐某不服,并向市 中法院提起上。日前,市中法院此案作出了判决。伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤法院理后,本案的焦点被上人港公 司上人唐某的《体充工意外害保》的伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤理款是否与社会工保的一次性工辞退相伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 重,上人唐某是否接受了充工保后再要求一次性工辞退。伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤此,法院,被上人上人唐某所的 《体充工意外害保》属于商保范,其伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 与社会工保具有不同的性,两者在法律系、伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 支付条件、支付主体、适用法律等方面均存在不同。而根据《广省社会伤伤伤伤工保条例》的定,被上人不能以保公司已伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 支付商保理款由,免除其向上人支付一次性工辞退的。伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 最后,法院判决被上人向上人支付一次性工辞退伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤9408元。 自己听从保公司的建了充工保,果是企伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤的担不未因此而减,反而加重了。此, 伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤港公司某保公司在行保宣,存在提 供虚假宣料、虚假承的目的。港公司目前已伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 就此事将某保公司告上了法院。伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 据悉,目前有很多保公司在推广充工保一。伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 相接:广省社会工保条例补补补补补补补补补补补补补补补 ( 补补 ) 第二十九条五至十残疾的工,用人位不能解除系, 伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤当安排力所能及的工作。 五至六伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤残疾工,工工本人提出或者在用人位破伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤,工可以与用人位解除或者止系,七至十残疾伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤工,合同期止,或者工本人提出解除合同的,由用人位支付一次性残就助金和工医助金,并工保系。伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤 ，一,一次性残就助金。按本人工基伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤数:五五十个月,六四伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤十个月,七二十五个月,八十五个月,九伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤八个月,十四个月。，二,一次性工医助金。按本人工基伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤数:五十个月,六八个月,七六个月,八四伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤伤个月,九二个月,十一个月。