目的 完善我国伤残评定制度。方法 对国内外伤残赔偿的性质及方式、国际上伤残评定标准颁布情况进行梳理与比较；以美国医学会《永久性残损评定指南》(GEPI)为参照，对《人体损伤致残程度分级》(《致残分级》)进行分析与评价。结果 《致残分级》总体上与GEPI存在相关性，但存在遗漏部分伤残评定条款、缺乏多发性损伤的晋级原则等问题。结论 《致残分级》具有普适性，但需要借鉴GEPI残损区域分值，细化等级划分，补充晋级原则，以满足我国现阶段伤残评定的需要。
Objective To perfect disability assessment in China. Methods The nature and method of disability compensation inside and outside China were reviewed, as well as the promulgation of disability assessment outside the region. The Classification of the Impairment Related to Injury was analyzed based on the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (GEPI). Results The Classification of the Impairment Related to Injury was consistent with GEPI in general, but there also were some problems, such as the omission of clauses, and lacking the promoted principle of multiple injury. Conclusion The Classification of the Impairment Related to Injury is universal. But it needs to take quantification of impairment of GEPI as reference, and refine the principle and supplement of the promoted principle, to meet the practical needs of disability assessment in China.
[1] 蔡颖雯,郑晓鹏. 最高人民法院侵权责任法司法解释精释精解[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社, 2016: 208-228.
[2] 何勤华,李秀清. 外国民商法[M]. 上海:复旦大学出版社, 2015: 345-349.
[3] Mendelson G, Mendelson D. Current and Future Evidence in Personal Damage Evaluation [M]// Santo Ferrara D. P5 Medicine and Justice: Innovation, Unitariness and Evidence. Berlin: Springer International Publishing AG, 2017: 296-329.
[4] 《道路交通事故人员伤残评定》研究组. 道路交通事故伤残评定操作指南与实务研究[M]. 北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004: 4.
[5] 李沁燚,邱卓英,陈迪,等. 基于ICF构建国家功能、残疾和健康的信息架构和数据体系[J]. 中国康复理论与实践, 2017, 23(4): 385-389.
[6] 王军,刘春梅. 英国人身伤害之非金钱损失赔偿制度研究——兼论对我国相关制度的构建[J]. 北方法学, 2009, 3(1): 19-29.
[7] Capek K D, Hughes B D, Warden G D. Functional sequelae and disability assessment [J]. Total Burn Care, 2018: 673-678.
[8] 杨天潼,向思阳. GEPI关于多项残损的复合计算溯源——兼谈《伤残分级》晋级问题[J]. 证据科学, 2017, 25(3): 281-288.
[9] Robert D R, Elizabeth G, Richard T K, et al. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment [M]. 6th ed. Chicago: American Medical Association, 2008: 490-512.
[10] 杨天潼,向思阳. 美国GEPI伤残标准之争议[J]. 东方论坛, 2017(3): 281-288.
[11] Yang T, Xiang S. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment and workers' compensation [J]. Evidence Science, 2017, 1: 88-95.
[12] Leclair N, Leclair S, Brigham C R. The Medical Model of Impairment [M]// Goldstein S, Naglieri J A. Assessing Impairment. New York: Springer Science+Bussiness Media, 2009: 59-75.
[13] Rondinelli R D. Commentary on reliability of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment [J]. J Occup Environ Med, 2010, 52 (12): 5-30.
[14] 王旭. 我国法医临床学鉴定标准现状与展望[J]. 中国法医学杂志, 2016, 31(5): 433-436.
[15] 范飞,胥科,樊迪. 听力减退及相关残疾标准比较研究[J]. 证据科学, 2017, 25(3): 289-306.
[16] Warren P A. The usage of the AMA Guides, for the determination of psychological injury within the State and Federal Workers’ Compensation Systems [J]. Psychol Injury Law, 2016, 9(4): 313-340.
