요양불승인처분취소
1. The Defendant’s non-approval disposition for medical care rendered to the Plaintiff on May 8, 2019 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On October 1, 2005, the Plaintiff (B) was employed as a business manager in charge of business management, quality control, security management, etc. in the project ordered by an external company after being employed in C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant workplace”) that is engaged in data processing and other computer operation-related business.
B. Around November 26, 2015 to June 15, 2016, the Plaintiff was performing the duties of a business manager in the “D business” (hereinafter “instant project”), which was conducted from around January 26, 2015 to around June 15, 2016. On November 6, 2015, the Plaintiff was sent back to the hospital through an ambulances, showing two copies and stove symptoms at home, and was diagnosed as “hovascular brain stoke,” and “non-stophical cerebrovascular,” both of which were diagnosed.
On July 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits by deeming the instant injury and disease as an occupational disease.
C. Accordingly, on May 8, 2019, the Defendant determined that “the Plaintiff was exposed to somewhat occupational stress while performing business management, quality control, and security management as a substantial business support and manager of the instant project, which began from January 2015, as its main duties. However, as a result of the implementation of a special medical examination on occupational burden factors, it is not verified that the sudden or rapid change in business environment related to the work has not been verified within 24 hours prior to the occurrence, and the average business hours of four weeks and twelve weeks prior to the occurrence are investigated at 48 hours in total, and it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relation between the work and the injury and injury and disease, without meeting the short-term and chronic road standards notified by the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and thus, it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relation between the injury and disease.”
The Plaintiff’s disposition of this case.