Over aged migrant workers suddenly fell ill during their lunch break and died within 48 hours after unsuccessful rescue efforts; Can the situation where a delivery rider ran a red light and exceeded the speed limit after leaving the platform, collided with a truck, and died be considered as a work-related injury or treated as such? On April 18th, the People's Court of Changping District, Beijing, released typical cases of work-related injury determination administrative cases. In one of the cases, Han, who was over 60 years old, worked as a laborer at a construction company's construction site. One day, during a lunch break, he suddenly felt unwell and died despite rescue efforts. Han's wife submitted an application for work-related injury recognition to the human resources and social security department, and the department made a decision to treat it as a work-related injury. The construction company involved in the case is dissatisfied and believes that if there is no labor relationship between Han and the company, there is no prerequisite for the determination of work-related injuries. Moreover, Han fell ill during his lunch break, not during working hours or job positions. Therefore, they filed an administrative lawsuit requesting the revocation of the work-related injury determination. The court held that although there is no labor relationship between Han and the company, Han is a migrant worker who has exceeded the statutory retirement age but has not retired or enjoyed the benefits of urban employee pension insurance, and his lunch break is a reasonable extension of working hours. Han suddenly felt unwell during his lunch break and died within 48 hours after unsuccessful rescue efforts, which falls under his working hours and job position. In the end, the court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the company involved and supported the decision made by the human resources and social security department to determine work-related injuries. In response, the judge pointed out that the original intention of designing the statutory retirement age system is to protect the rights and interests of workers, but it will not become a reason to exclude the determination of work-related injuries for workers. When over aged workers re-enter the workforce, they must disclose their true information such as age, physical condition, and whether they have received basic urban employee pension insurance to the employer. Employers should promptly pay work-related injury insurance for their employees, do a good job in preventing and controlling employment risks, and provide and create conditions to meet the necessary physiological needs of employees, safeguarding their legitimate rights and interests. With the rapid development of the platform economy, the number of new forms of employment such as food delivery riders, couriers, and ride hailing drivers has increased, and their claims for occupational injury protection benefits are also constantly increasing. Liu is a delivery person for a certain online platform. In the early morning of May 2024, Liu completed an order and went home offline. On the way, he collided with a truck and was injured. After unsuccessful rescue efforts, he died. The traffic management department has determined that Liu was driving an electric bicycle in the motor lane, violating traffic signals and speeding, and bears the main responsibility for the accident. The platform involved in the case has submitted an application for payment of occupational injury protection benefits for the accident injury suffered by Liu. After review, the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau believes that when Liu had a traffic accident, the platform order task had already ended and was in a non online state, which did not fall within the period of executing the platform order task. Therefore, a conclusion letter of no confirmation of occupational injury was made. Liu's parents are dissatisfied and have filed a lawsuit to the court, requesting the revocation of the conclusion. Whether a food delivery rider is online is one of the important factors to consider whether they are in a working state The court held that Liu had already completed the platform order task and had been taken offline at the time of the incident, which means that the platform cannot assign work tasks to him, and therefore no longer manages his work. At this time, he is not in a working state. At the same time, as Liu was found to be primarily responsible for the traffic accident, the determination made by the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau has factual and legal basis. In the end, the court ruled to reject Liu's parents' lawsuit request and supported the conclusion made by the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau not to confirm occupational injuries. It is worth noting that the court pointed out that the frequent occurrence of such cases is due to the long-term neglect of workers who have not signed labor contracts, have not paid social security, and lack of awareness of relevant regulations on work-related injury recognition. In addition, some employers engage in illegal employment practices, making it difficult to confirm labor relations, and tend to evade compensation after the incident, which also brings certain difficulties to the determination of work-related injuries. To standardize the recognition of work-related injuries and protect the legitimate rights and interests of workers and employers, the court suggests that enterprises should comply with employment management norms and fulfill social responsibilities in accordance with the law. At the same time, workers should comply with industry standards and regulations to minimize the occurrence of accidents, injuries, or occupational diseases. New forms of employment workers should pay attention to platform rules and ensure the right to occupational injury relief. (outlook new era)