administrative procedure law of the people's republic of china
Article 33 Evidence includes:
(1) Documentary evidence;
(2) Physical evidence;
(3) Audio-visual materials;
(4) Electronic data;
(5) Testimony of witnesses;
(6) statements of the parties;
(7) Appraisal opinions;
(8) Records of inspection and on-site records.
The above evidence can only be used as the basis for determining the facts of the case if it is verified by the court.
Extended data:
Article 27 of the Supreme People's Court's "Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings" stipulates that "if a party has any objection to the appraisal opinions made by the appraisal department entrusted by the people's court, and applies for re-appraisal, and provides evidence to prove that there are any of the following circumstances, the people's court shall allow it:
1, the appraisal institution or appraiser does not have relevant appraisal qualification;
2. The appraisal procedure is seriously illegal;
3, the identification conclusion is obviously insufficient;
4. Other circumstances that cannot be used as evidence after cross-examination.
Case:
Recently, new progress has been made in the case of medical damage dispute between premature infants aged/kloc-0 and An Children's Hospital, including Han (a pseudonym), which was repeatedly reported by Huashang Daily. The second instance of Xi Intermediate People's Court ruled that the medical fault appraisal procedure issued by Shaanxi Blueprint Judicial Appraisal Center was illegal and could not be used as the basis for finalization. The first-instance judgment of this case was revoked and sent back to Lianhu District People's Court for retrial.
A boy, including a premature baby, born in April 20 16, Shaanxi, had a doctor-patient dispute with xi 'an Children's Hospital during the treatment. Family members believed that the hospital was responsible for causing blindness, so they sued the hospital to the Lianhu District People's Court in Xi City.
20 17 12 12, Lianhu District People's Court made a civil judgment: there is no causal relationship between the results including blindness and the diagnosis and treatment behavior of Xi 'an Children's Hospital, and there is no fact that the hospital "delayed treatment and did not inform parents of the examination results and treatment suggestions".
According to the investigation of Huashang Daily, the court of first instance made a judgment that the hospital was not liable, based on a flawed judicial expertise. Fan, the first appraiser, also works in two appraisal institutions, which seriously violates relevant laws and regulations. It is also illegal for appraisers to sign on their behalf. Finally, the Shaanxi Provincial Department of Justice dealt with the appraisers and appraisal institutions accordingly.
On April 20 10/8, the Xi Intermediate People's Court conducted the second trial of this case. During the trial, the appraiser could not answer a lot of medical knowledge asked by the patient, and finally reluctantly said that he did not have clinical medical knowledge in ophthalmology or pediatrics.
Recently, the Xi Intermediate People's Court made a second-instance ruling on this case: the new evidence submitted by the patient is enough to prove that the appraisal report procedure made by Shaanxi Blueprint Judicial Appraisal Center is illegal, so the appraisal opinion cannot be used as the basis for finalizing this case, and the basic facts are unclear. In accordance with relevant laws, the first-instance judgment of this case was revoked and the case file was sent back to the Lianhu District People's Court for retrial.
People's Daily Online-Haizhou Intermediate People's Court ruled that the appraisal procedure was illegal.