《中国康复理论与实践》

《中国康复理论与实践》 ›› 2007, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (08): 769-771.

• 残疾分类 • 上一篇    下一篇

眼损伤伤残标准比较研究

王旭; 常林   

  1. 中国政法大学证据科学研究院 证据科学教育部重点实验室,北京市 100040
  • 收稿日期:2006-08-01 出版日期:2007-08-01 发布日期:2007-08-01

Comparison on Criteria of Impairment Evaluation about Eye Injury

WANG Xu, CHANG Lin   

  1. The Institute of Evidence Law and Forensic Science, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing100040, China
  • Received:2006-08-01 Published:2007-08-01 Online:2007-08-01

PDF (PC)

被引次数

13

摘要： 目的比较目前司法实践中常用的眼损伤伤残评定标准。方法对目前司法实践中常用的工伤标准、交通标准、普通伤害标准三大标准中的眼损伤伤残条款的内容及附录的内容进行比较分析。结果三大标准中眼损伤伤残条款的设立有本质性区别,工伤标准宽泛,另外两个标准严格;工伤标准与普通伤害的标准较为严谨,而交通标准不够严谨;三种标准存在混乱、不科学之处,同一种损伤应用不同标准常评定为不同的伤残等级,同时与国际上的标准比较也已落后。结论眼损伤伤残标准中存在很多问题,急需修订并完善。

关键词: 眼损伤, 伤残标准, 国际功能, 残疾和健康分类(ICF)

Abstract: Objective To compare and investigate the criteria of impairment evaluation about eye injury.MethodsThe distill items, contents of these items and excursus of three criteria, Assessment and Gradation of Disability Caused by Work-related Injuries and Occupational Diseases (AGDCWIOD), Assessment for Body Impairment of the Injured in Road Traffic Accident (ABIIRTA) and Assessment and Gradation of Impairment Caused by Trauma (AGICT), commonly used in justice practice at present were compared.ResultsThere were essential differences among three criteria. AGDCWIOD was loose, ABIIRTA and AGICT were strict. AGDCWIOD and AGICT were religious, ABOIIRTA was oversight and non-religious. At the same time, there were differences between domestic and international criteria, and domestic criteria were behind the times.ConclusionThere are many problems in the criteria of impairment evaluation about eye injury; related items need recension and consummation.

Key words: eye injury, criteria of impairment evaluation, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)