요양불승인처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From February 21, 1967 to September 30, 1997, the Plaintiff engaged in digging and collecting coal in the Korea Coal Corporation B Mining Complex.
B. After retirement from the Korea Coal Corporation B Mining Center, on March 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant for the instant injury and disease on April 28, 2015, following the Plaintiff’s examination of the latitude, the examination of the heat of the enemy-ray, and the examination of both sides of the water surface radon rads, etc. (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”). < Amended by Act No. 13588, May 28, 2015>
C. On July 13, 2015, the Defendant issued a medical care non-approval disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) according to the result of the judgment of the Seoul Committee for Determination of the Occupational Disease that the instant injury and disease cannot be recognized as an occupational disease because the Plaintiff’s clinical opinion and the prosecutor’s opinion did not comply with the instant injury and lack relevance with the instant injury and disease diagnosis.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff alleged in the plaintiff's assertion was exposed to a very serious vibration while engaging in digging, collecting coal, installing a supporting unit in the pit and strengthening the mine in three-years at the time of his/her work in the coal mine in the Korea Coal Corporation B, for 30 years and seven hours per day in the working environment in the coal mine in which the difference between the outside and the temperature between the outside and the cold and damp environments is serious, and it was diagnosed by the National University Hospital in the instant case after his/her retirement in the form of three-years and seven hours per day.
Therefore, even though the injury and disease of this case has a proximate causal relation with the plaintiff's work, the disposition of this case made by the defendant on different premise is unlawful.
B. Judgment by the Plaintiff