评定劳动能力伤残等级是一件专业性很强的事情，有专门的鉴定机构。我们律师不是这方面的专业人士。现根据国家公布的鉴定标准，预估一下劳动能力伤残等级。胸椎骨折，T12椎体压缩性骨折，并行复位内固定术。《劳动能力鉴定职工工伤与职业病致残等级》5.8.2规定：符合下列条款之一者均为工伤八级：13）脊椎压缩骨折，椎体前缘高度减少1/2以上者或脊柱不稳定性骨折;14）3个及以上节段脊柱内固定术。5.9.2规定：符合下列条款之一者均为工伤九级：12)脊椎压缩骨折，椎体前缘高度减少小于1/2者;14)1～2节脊柱内固定术。因而被认定为九级的可能性比较大。关于九级的工伤待遇（1）医疗费（2）住院伙食补助费、护理费（3）停工留薪期间，工资待遇不变（4）一次性伤残补助金：九个月的本人工资（5）一次性工伤医疗补助金：二个月的本人工资（6）一次性伤残就业补助金：八个月的本人工资

因双倍工资具有惩罚性，并非劳动报酬的性质，不应适用“劳动关系存续期间因拖欠劳动报酬发生争议的，劳动者申请仲裁不受本条第一款规定的仲裁时效期间的限制；但是，劳动关系终止的，应当自劳动关系终止之日起一年内提出。”的规定，而应该适用《劳动争议调解仲裁法》关于一年仲裁时效的规定。这样，张某2008年2月由于没有签订劳动合同的双倍工资差额部分，如果没有在之后连续12个月内主张，在第13个月就过期了，其他月份的诉讼时效依此类推。所以，本案中，用人单位只应支付给张某2008年10月1日—2008年12月31日3个月的双倍工资差额部分，2008年10月1日以前的双倍工资工资差额部分因为超过了一年的诉讼时效而得不到法院的支持。

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.

Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law. One would assume the conflict won’t go nuclear, because that’s a patently absurd result for economically intertwined nations. Maybe it won’t get that far, but those who care about these international law disputes think China and the U.S. are on a collision course because both sides hew closely to contradictory readings of international law.