[Direct answer]In principle, companies are not automatically liable for employee suicides. Only if family members can prove a legal causal relationship between long-term overwork and depression or suicide, and if the company is at fault in terms of working hours arrangements, psychological care, or rescue measures, may compensation claims be supported. Suicide or self-harm are legally excluded circumstances in work-related injury identification, and according to the "Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance" (amended on December 20, 2010), they generally cannot be treated as work-related injuries. A feasible approach is to claim tort liability according to Article 1179 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" (effective on January 1, 2021), with the main difficulties lying in proving causality and fault. Family members should first organize overtime records, medical records, and work orders into a chain of evidence, then assess the litigation costs and duration, and not equate an employee's illness or death at work with the company's obligation to compensate.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

Such disputes rarely arise from a single incident, but rather from a cumulative workload over time. The typical pattern is as follows: employees bear excessive tasks, work overtime or night shifts for months, face performance and bottom-of-the-ranking assessments, gradually develop insomnia, depression, and reduced concentration. They first seek treatment at general hospitals or psychiatric clinics, where diagnoses of depression and anxiety are recorded. Subsequently, they request leave, change jobs, or are summoned for talks, ultimately leading to suicide during or shortly after employment. After handling the aftermath, family members review work group chat records, schedules, and medical records to establish a connection between the intensity of overtime and mental health deterioration, then question the company's responsibility. Unlike sudden deaths due to illness, there is no established channel for recognizing this as a work-related injury. Suicide is typically excluded from work-related injury determinations, and the dispute centers on three legal thresholds: whether the employer engaged in illegal or improper employment management, whether there is a medical or factual link between depression and excessive workload, and whether the employer fulfilled its obligation to provide necessary warnings, adjustments, or assistance for foreseeable risks. In addition to the employer, other parties involved may include HR departments, direct supervisors, collaborators assigning tasks, and medical institutions. Evidence is scattered across attendance systems, work group chats, personnel files, and hospital medical records, with chat messages and schedules easily being overwritten or withdrawn. Reconstructing the timeline step by step - from task escalation, overtime records, medical appointments, status changes, and communication to the incident itself - is a prerequisite for determining liability.

II. Key points of dispute

One of the disputes is the basis of the right to claim compensation. Suicide or self-harm are statutory exclusions from the definition of work-related injuries, and it is difficult to claim compensation based on the "Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance" (amended on December 20, 2010) as if it were a work-related injury. Families usually have to turn to the tort compensation provisions in Article 1179 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" (implemented on January 1, 2021), which means they must actively prove the fault, damage, and causality, with a significantly heavier burden of proof. The second dispute concerns causality. The causes of depression are complex, involving individual constitution, family factors, and previous medical history. Courts typically require families to provide evidence to prove a substantial link between long-term overwork, mental harm, and the outcome of suicide, often assisted by expert assessments of mental state or causality. Such assessments often become decisive in determining liability. The third dispute focuses on the employer's fault. This involves reviewing whether working hours exceed legal limits, whether overtime work was subject to consultation and approval, whether performance evaluations were manifestly unfair, and whether the employer arranged job transfers or leave for disclosed abnormal conditions prior to the incident. Liability is difficult to establish if there is only overtime work without management negligence or foreseeability. The fourth dispute concerns the scope and proportion of liability. Even if liability is established, it must be apportioned based on the degree of causality. Individual autonomous actions often significantly reduce the employer's share of responsibility, and the determination of mental harm compensation and related items follows the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases" (amended on February 15, 2022).

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Lawyers

When handling such cases, Henglu Law Firm cross-verifies the materials based on four criteria: employment intensity, mental state, foreseeability, and damage consequences. **1. Employment Intensity**: Retrieve the original shift schedules and attendance records, overtime approval forms, late-night instructions from work groups, task delivery and deadline records, performance and evaluation methods, and overtime payment items in payroll records to reconstruct the peak and duration of continuous workloads. Analyzing overtime on a single day is meaningless; only trends and cumulative data reveal the problem. **2. Mental State**: Medical evidence includes outpatient and hospital records, psychiatric assessment scales, diagnosis certificates, follow-up records, prescriptions and medication use, and psychological counseling records. These documents not only prove the existence of harm but also anchor the changes in mental state to specific time points. **3. Foreseeability**: This aspect is often overlooked. Key indicators include whether employees reported physical or emotional issues to supervisors or HR, whether the company organized physical exams or psychological screenings, whether colleagues noticed obvious abnormalities, and whether anyone advised or contacted family members before the incident. Undisclosed issues versus proactive adjustments make a significant difference in liability assessment. **4. Damage Consequences**: Compile incident accounts, on-site records, police reports, and kinship certificates to verify the project and parties involved. When causality is in doubt, apply for forensic psychiatric or cause-of-death evaluations to determine the workload's role in mental disorders. Both parties often present conflicting claims: families emphasize long-term illegal overtime, coercive evaluations, and failure to address known issues; employers counter with workhour compliance, voluntary overtime, attributing depression to personal/family factors, and claiming suicide was an unforeseeable act. Courts typically first verify the basis of the infringement claim, then review fault, damage, and causality in accordance with Article 1179 of the Civil Code (effective January 1, 2021), combining expert opinions to apportion liability based on causality. Finally, they calculate damages using the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases (amended February 15, 2022) and allocate burden of proof and time limits under the Civil Procedure Law (amended December 24, 2021, effective January 1, 2024). If any of the four lines falters, the claim fails, so supplementary evidence must be targeted.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

At the legal level, for work-related injuries and compensation, refer to the "Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance" (amended on December 20, 2010). For infringement claims and projects, refer to Article 1179 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" (effective on January 1, 2021) and the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trials of Personal Injury Compensation Cases" (amended on February 15, 2022). For medical treatment and medical record verification, refer to the "Regulations on the Prevention and Handling of Medical Disputes" (effective on October 1, 2018) regarding the rules on accessing and copying medical records. For cost burden, refer to the "Method for Payment of Litigation Costs" (effective on April 1, 2007). For procedural application, refer to the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended on December 24, 2021 and effective on January 1, 2024). The process consists of four steps. **Step 1**: Collect six types of materials: shift schedules, attendance records, and overtime approval documents; work group instructions and task records; performance evaluation methods; psychiatric outpatient and inpatient medical records and medication records; communication records with the employer regarding abnormal situations; and evidence of the incident and proof of kinship. **Step 2**: Clarify the basis of the claim, confirm that the claim is not based on deeming it a work-related injury, but rather a lawsuit against the employer for infringement, and verify jurisdiction and statute of limitations. **Step 3**: For disputes over causality and contributory negligence, promptly apply for expert appraisal and submit overtime trends, medical treatment timelines, and appraisal materials all at once to avoid weakening the persuasiveness of evidence through piecemeal supplementation. **Step 4**: Prioritize negotiation or mediation. If negotiation fails, initiate litigation. For cases involving large amounts or complex appraisals, hire professional lawyers to coordinate efforts. For cases requiring item-by-item verification of evidence lists, refer to our firm's guidelines.Guidelines for Evidence Collection and Appraisal in Cases of Overwork-Related InfringementsKeep all records in writing throughout the process, and don't use oral statements to replace the original export records.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Advice

In such cases, the most important thing is to stay calm and manage expectations. Here are three tips: 1. First, clarify the legal path: Suicide is typically excluded from work-related injury recognition, so relying solely on "deemed work-related injury" can easily lead to missed opportunities to provide evidence and meet deadlines for tort litigation. 2. Establish a clear causal relationship: Depression has multiple causes, and overtime screenshots alone are insufficient to support a claim. Attendance trends, medical records, disclosure records, and expert opinions must corroborate each other. Work group messages and shift schedules may be easily overwritten, so it’s crucial to request the employer to preserve evidence in writing immediately after the incident and, if necessary, apply for evidence preservation. 3. Calculate costs and timelines: Causal relationship appraisal, the six-month trial period for ordinary procedures and three-month trial period for summary procedures in first-instance cases, and the three-month appellate process will all prolong the process. It’s advisable to estimate and prepay litigation fees according to the *Method for Payment of Litigation Fees* (effective April 1, 2007), compare claimable items, potential liability ratios, and costs, and then set a negotiation baseline. Due to variations in case-specific working hour compliance, disclosure records, and expert conclusions, which can differ significantly, it’s safer to verify each item with a timeline and materials list rather than blindly trusting any outcome promises.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If an employee commits suicide after suffering from depression caused by long-term overwork, is the company liable for it?

Not necessarily. It is necessary to simultaneously prove that the unit has improper employment or management faults, a causal relationship between long-term overwork, mental damage, and the result of suicide, and that the risk was foreseeable to the unit. If any of the three conditions is missing, it will be difficult to gain support. Suicide or self-harm are statutory exclusion circumstances for work-related injury recognition under the "Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance" (amended on December 20, 2010), and compensation for work-related death cannot be claimed on this basis. A feasible approach is to claim tort compensation in accordance with Article 1179 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" (effective January 1, 2021), with the burden of proof falling on the claimant. If there is only continuous overtime but the unit's working hours are compliant and the unit is unaware of the abnormalities, the court will often reduce or deny liability on the grounds of the employee's voluntary actions. However, if there are illegal overtime, coercive assessments, or the unit failing to adjust the employee's position despite knowing about their depression, the likelihood of liability will significantly increase. It is recommended to first connect the scheduling trends, medical records, and disclosure communications into a timeline, apply for a causality assessment if necessary, and then evaluate whether to file a lawsuit.

Q2: To confirm the correlation between overtime work and depression, what attendance and medical records should be retrieved?

The six types of records should form a corresponding timeline. Single-type records are insufficient to demonstrate the correlation: 1. Original data from the shift scheduling and attendance system, including consecutive months of overtime hours, night shift and rest day records; 2. Overtime approval forms, late-night instructions from work groups, and records of task deadlines and deliveries, demonstrating the source of workload and its mandatory nature; 3. Performance evaluation methods, interview and job transfer notifications, indicating management pressure; 4. Psychiatric outpatient and inpatient medical records, scale assessments, diagnosis certificates, follow-up visits, and prescription medications, pinpointing the time points of status changes; 5. Communication records of employees reporting emotional abnormalities to supervisors or HR departments, as well as leave applications and physical examination materials, reflecting the predictability of the unit; 6. Evidence of the incident and proof of kinship relationships. According to the *Regulations on the Prevention and Handling of Medical Disputes* (effective October 1, 2018) regarding the rules for reviewing and copying medical records, patients can apply to the medical records department for stamped copies of the materials; According to the *Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China* (amended on December 24, 2021 and effective January 1, 2024), electronic data should retain the original carriers and export explanations, rather than just saving a few screenshots.

Q3: When claiming compensation for overwork-related infringements, are attorney's fees calculated on a per-case basis or as a percentage of the total claim amount?

Depending on whether it is necessary to conduct a causality assessment and collect evidence from multiple parties, simple consultations or document drafting are usually charged on a per-item basis. In cases involving litigation and assessments, fees are more commonly calculated as a percentage of the litigation amount and agreed upon at different stages. Lawyer's fees are not subject to unified government pricing. In accordance with Article 1179 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021), fees are determined based on the scope of work and workload, and are charged on a per-item basis, as a percentage of the litigation amount, or on an hourly basis, subject to the terms of the engagement contract. Litigation fees are calculated separately according to the "Method for Payment of Litigation Fees" (effective April 1, 2007). The plaintiff must pre-pay fees in installments based on the litigation amount when filing the case, and the losing party ultimately bears the costs or shares them according to the liability ratio. When damages for mental distress are included in the litigation amount, the pre-paid fees will adjust accordingly. In such cases, where there are significant disputes over causality and long litigation periods, it is advisable to clarify the scope of claims, estimated litigation amounts, and costs such as assessment fees and preservation fees before signing the contract, and then calculate the proportion to determine whether to proceed with the case. It is also necessary to remain vigilant against contingency fee arrangements and not mistake advance payments for the final amounts payable.

Q4: How many months is the time limit for the first-instance ordinary procedure of a lawsuit against overwork-induced infringement?

The first-instance trial of ordinary procedures usually lasts six months, and that of simplified procedures lasts three months. The second-instance trial also lasts three months, with the time for appraisal and announcement counted separately. This is based on the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on December 24, 2021 and implemented on January 1, 2024). What really prolongs the duration of such cases is not the time limit itself, but the appraisal of causality: the appraisal of mental state or participation often takes several months from the commissioning, the authentication of evidence to the issuance of opinions. If the evidence is not complete, it will be returned for correction. It is best to submit the working hours trend, medical records, and disclosure records all at once. If there are jurisdictional objections, additional defendants or appraisers appear in court, the time will continue to be extended. It is recommended to record the evidentiary period, the commissioning of appraisal, the court hearing, and the appeal node into a ledger from the filing of the case, and to check the prepayment and refund according to the "Measures for the Payment of Litigation Fees" (implemented on April 1, 2007). Do not regard the time limit as the entire cycle, and do not assume that the case has been shelved just because the appraisal takes a long time.

Q5: Should I first seal the company's shift schedule or apply for a mental health assessment first?

First, fix the company's shift schedule and communication records, then discuss the appraisal. If the order is reversed, the appraisal will lose the basis of the evidence. Follow the four-step process: first, request the unit to preserve the shift schedule, attendance export, overtime approval, and work group instructions and performance records in writing. If necessary, apply for evidence preservation or notarization to prevent system overwriting and message withdrawal; then apply to the medical records department for stamped copies of psychiatric outpatient and inpatient medical records, scale assessments, diagnosis certificates, follow-up visits, and prescription medications, aligning the consultation time points with the overtime peak; subsequently, organize communication records of employees reporting abnormalities to supervisors or HR, leave and physical examination materials, corresponding to the unit's foreseeability; after all materials are in place, check jurisdiction and statutory time limits, and assess whether to initiate an infringement lawsuit and apply for causality appraisal in accordance with Article 1179 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021). Maintain written records throughout the process, and don't wait until the export cycle has passed to retrieve them later.

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. In the event of a dispute, please consult a practicing lawyer in a timely manner.