Development of Standards of Disability in China and Comparison with Foreign Countries

  • WANG Xu ,
  • CHEN Jun ,
  • JIN Kang-jia
Expand
  • 1.Key Laboratory of Evidence Science, Ministry of Education, Beijing 100088, China
    2.Collaborative Innovation Center of Judicial Civilizatio, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100088, China
    3. Forensic Science Standards Research Center, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100088, China
    4.Shanghai Key Laboratory of Scene Evidence, Shanghai 200083, China

Received date: 2019-04-29

  Revised date: 2019-08-22

  Online published: 2019-09-25

Supported by

Supported by Ministry of Education Humanities and Social Sciences Fund (No. 18YJA820018; No. 10YJA820105) and Shanghai Key Laboratory of on-set Material Evidence Open Researches Fund and Key Laboratory of Evidence Science (China University of Political Science and Law, Ministry of Education) Opening Project (No. 2018KFKT07)

Abstract

Objective To discuss the technical standards of disability assessment in personal injury compensation in China, and to put forward the conception of standard construction. Methods The disability assessment technical standards in China were systematically reviewed, as well as the contents of the United States Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (GEPI) and the United Kingdom Guidelines for the Assessment of General Compensation in Personal Injury Cases (GAGD). Results There were six standards for disability assessment and three of them were commonly used in China at present, coming from different departments. There were some repeated, intertwined, contradictory contents. The disabilities were graded in ten grades, and the disability rate was difference of 10% between two successive grades. The determination of disability grades came from the consensus of specialists, and was little scientific. In comparison, GEPI was developed according to the ICF standards formulated by the World Health Organization, which contained continuous disability value instead of disability grade, along with the weight of organs to calculate synthetically. GEPI emphasizes Objective indicators. GAGD directly gave the financial amount of disability compensation. Conclusion It is needed to integrate the standard management departments of technical standards for disability assessment in China to link standards up; strengthen macro plan and establish the system table of forensic disability assessment standards; carry out international exchanges of technical standards and refer to the concept and data of foreign standards when revising standards.

Cite this article

WANG Xu , CHEN Jun , JIN Kang-jia . Development of Standards of Disability in China and Comparison with Foreign Countries[J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2019 , 25(9) : 1060 -1065 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2019.09.013

References

1 侯一平. “十三五”法医学科学研究发展战略思考[J]. 中国司法鉴定, 2016(2): 57-63.
2 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.
3 陈军,王旭. 法庭科学/司法鉴定标准化建设工作的探索与思考[J]. 中国司法鉴定, 2018(6): 22-26.
4 占梦军,邱丽蓉,邓振华. 脊柱损伤相关残疾标准的比较研究[J]. 中国法医学杂志, 2018, 33(5): 493-498.
5 American Medical Association. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment [M]. 6th ed. Chicago: American Medical Association, 2008.
6 施蕾,罗宇鹏,邓振华. 足部残疾标准比较研究[J]. 证据科学, 2018, 26(3): 353-382.
7 Judicial Studies Board. Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases [M]. 14th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
8 杨天潼,向思阳. 美国GEPI伤残标准之争议[J]. 东方论坛, 2017(3): 108-113.
9 杨天潼,于丽丽,项剑,等. 《永久性残损评定指南》下肢关节活动度评定原则[J]. 中国法医学杂志, 2018, 33(1): 112-114.
10 代滨滨,于丽丽,向思阳,等. 《人体损伤致残程度分级》与GEPI对足踝伤残评定的比较[J]. 中国法医学杂志, 2018, 33(6): 594-597.
11 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.
12 CocchiarellaL. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment [M]. 5th ed. Chicago: American Medical Association, 1999.
13 周晶,王旭.《人体损伤致残程度分级》与《永久残损评定指南》的比较研究[J]. 中国康复理论与实践, 2019, 25(2): 239-243.
14 杨天潼,尤萌. 《永久性残损评定指南(第六版)》实践应用指南[J]. 证据科学, 2015, 23(3): 359-370.
15 于连超. 《标准化法》的新理念与新制度评析[J]. 标准科学, 2018(1): 6-12.
Outlines

/

〈 〉