요양급여불승인처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 1, 2014, the Plaintiff was a person who was employed in the coal industry as B and was engaged in the C Apartment security service. At around 10:30 on July 8, 2014, the Plaintiff was using cardiopulmonary resuscitation as a stop in order to take a disposal and transportation work in the same complex and waste treatment and transportation work in the same complex and in order to have his body injured and her body left at a guard. However, the Plaintiff was in a state of low oxygen brain damage and liverness, etc., without awareness, and was unable to repulmonate.
B. The Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits on the ground that the Plaintiff’s duty dualism did not meet the requirements set forth in the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and was likely to occur due to the aggravation of chronic disease, which is an existing disease, on October 7, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s duty dualism did not meet the requirements of the excess set forth in the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and applied for non-approval (the instant disposition was conducted under the following).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 5, Eul evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 7, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff worked as a day-off without a day-off from January 1, 2014, which was the date of his/her membership until July 8, 2014, which was the date of his/her injury or disease. Since one month prior to the occurrence of the injury or disease, labor intensity has increased due to the addition of waste disposal business to the existing business, etc., the defendant does not constitute the excess on the ground that there was no rapid increase in the amount of business immediately before the occurrence of the injury or disease. The plaintiff cannot be applied to the plaintiff who had been in the state of "mal division" since his/her membership.
In addition, the defendant cannot exclude the possibility that the serious paralysis would occur due to high pressure and chronic closed diseases of the plaintiff, which are existing diseases.