The basic facts of the case show that Mr. Wu was an employee of a certain company during his lifetime. On April 29, 2021, while at work, he was taken to a hospital for treatment due to physical discomfort and died on May 1, 2021, despite efforts to resuscitate him.

The company submitted an application for workers’ compensation recognition to the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of a certain prefecture in Guizhou Province (hereinafter referred to as the Prefectural HRSS Bureau). The State Human Resources and Social Security Bureau issued a Decision Not to Recognize the Incident as a Work-Related Injury.

The children of Mr. Wu, namely Mr. Wu Jun and Ms. Wu Qin, dissatisfied with the aforementioned determination, instituted an administrative lawsuit, seeking to have the “Decision Not to Recognize Work-Related Injury” revoked and to compel the Prefecture Human Resources and Social Security Bureau to reissue a decision recognizing Mr. Wu’s injury as work-related.

The case went through first-instance, second-instance, and retrial proceedings. In its retrial judgment, the court held that Wu’s condition should not be recognized as an industrial injury, on the grounds that, pursuant to the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance and other relevant provisions, an illness that occurs during working hours and at the workplace must result in death or be deemed fatal within 48 hours despite emergency medical treatment. A death shall be recognized as an industrial injury; in this context, the “48-hour” period shall commence from the time of the medical institution’s initial diagnosis of the sudden illness.

The initial outpatient visit of Mr. Wu was at 8:55 a.m. on April 29, 2021; his admission occurred at 11:42 a.m. that same day; and the time of death was pronounced at 12:08 p.m. on May 1, 2021. Counting from the time of the initial diagnosis, more than 48 hours had elapsed by the time of death; even when calculated from the time of admission, the interval still exceeded 48 hours.

Wu Moujun and Wu Mouqin, dissatisfied with the retrial judgment, applied to the Guizhou Provincial People’s Procuratorate for supervisory review. Following its examination, the procuratorate duly submitted a protest to the Supreme People’s Procuratorate in accordance with the law.

The procuratorial organ ascertained, through reviewing court case files, examining medical records, interviewing the attending physicians and fellow employees, among other methods, that on the morning of April 29, Wu was brought to the hospital’s outpatient department. In accordance with epidemic prevention and control requirements, he was transferred to the fever clinic for exclusion of COVID‑19, then to the internal medicine outpatient department for a brief medical history inquiry and physical examination. At 11:42 a.m., admission procedures were completed, and CT and ultrasound examinations were performed. At 12:50 p.m., a medical history was collected and a preliminary physical examination conducted, followed by the issuance of orders at 1:00 p.m. to initiate emergency resuscitation.

At 11:20 a.m. on May 1, Mr. Wu exhibited absent spontaneous breathing, cardiac arrest, undetectable blood pressure and oxygen saturation, bilaterally dilated pupils measuring approximately 8.0 mm in diameter, and absent pupillary light reflexes. Subsequently, his condition showed no improvement, and at 12:08 p.m. on May 1, 2021, the physician pronounced him clinically dead.

The procuratorial organ, upon review, held that the case did not exceed the “48-hour” limit and should therefore be recognized as an industrial injury. The retrial judgment, however, found that the “48-hour” threshold had been exceeded due to errors in the court’s determination of both the starting point (the date of the initial diagnosis) and the time of death.

(1) The starting point for determining the relevant period is inappropriate. At the fever clinic, Mr. Wu Ping was only undergoing screening for COVID‑19 and did not receive any diagnosis or treatment; therefore, the date of diagnosis at that clinic should not be regarded as the starting point. According to the Regulations on Work‑Related Injury Insurance, the provision concerning “death from a sudden illness or death within 48 hours despite emergency treatment” places emphasis on the time of emergency resuscitation, and the starting point should be the date of the diagnosis closest to the moment of resuscitation.

(2) It is inappropriate to designate the time when the physician pronounced Mr. Wu’s death as the time of his death. At 11:20 a.m. on May 1, Mr. Wu had already lost both cardiac and respiratory activity; his blood pressure and oxygen saturation were unmeasurable, his pupils were markedly dilated, measuring approximately 8.0 mm in diameter, and his pupillary light reflex was absent. Death was irreversible at that point, and there was no subsequent improvement. Therefore, that moment should be regarded as the time of death. As for the physician’s declaration of death at 12:08 p.m. on May 1, it resulted from the family’s and the medical institution’s refusal to abandon resuscitative measures. The family’s steadfast determination to continue resuscitation and their unwavering commitment to pursue all available options are entirely understandable and reasonable. Consequently, the time of death should not be pushed back on the grounds that continued resuscitation delayed the determination, nor should the case be excluded from workers’ compensation coverage. Moreover, following his admission, Mr. Wu’s condition steadily deteriorated; he was transferred to the ICU for intensive care, and after experiencing sudden respiratory and cardiac arrest, he underwent emergency resuscitation. Such circumstances may be characterized as continuous resuscitative efforts. In view of these facts, Mr. Wu falls within the category of a sudden illness that, despite timely and effective resuscitation, results in death within 48 hours; therefore, his case should be recognized as an industrial injury. Accordingly, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate has, in accordance with the law, filed a protest with the Supreme People’s Court.

On April 18, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court, in a retrial, determined that Wu Moping fell under the category of “death occurring within 48 hours despite resuscitation efforts,” and accordingly ruled to overturn the original retrial judgment, upholding the determination of work-related injury. Subsequently, Wu Moping’s family lawfully received work‑injury insurance benefits totaling more than RMB 920,000.

The Supreme People’s Procuratorate stated that, Saving lives embodies the noble principle of putting life first and prioritizing people. In determining work-related injuries, the threshold for emergency rescue should not be rigidly enforced, nor should it be measured by cold, impersonal time limits that constrain the unwavering dedication of family members. The original intent behind the “48-hour” provision in the Regulations on Work‑Injury Insurance was to safeguard workers’ rights and interests, not to place relatives in a moral dilemma between “giving up treatment to qualify for work‑injury benefits” and “persisting with rescue at the risk of losing those benefits.” When handling administrative prosecution cases involving work‑injury matters, procuratorial organs must remain people‑centered, uphold an objective and impartial stance, conduct thorough and comprehensive investigations to verify the facts, adhere to the legislative purpose, accurately define the legal essence of “continuous emergency rescue,” and, in accordance with the law, perform their functions of legal supervision—including lodging protests—to protect the legitimate rights and interests of workers.

Follow us