진료계획 일부 불승인 처분 취소 및 휴업급여 지급 청구
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 15, 2009, the Plaintiff, who had been performing building management duties in Company B, was under medical care with the left-hand slick sleep, the left-hand slick slick slick, the left-hand slick slick slick slick, and the slick slick slick slick slick slick slick s
B. On March 15, 2017, the Plaintiff’s medical specialist submitted a medical treatment plan (Evidence B-2) stating that “The additional medical treatment is required from March 15, 2017 to March 15, 2018.” However, on April 25, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to the effect that “only the medical treatment is recognized until May 31, 2017, and it is reasonable to terminate the subsequent medical treatment.”
C. On April 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim for temporary layoff benefits with the Defendant from January 9, 2017 to April 13, 2017. However, the Defendant: (a) on April 25, 2017, where employment treatment is possible from January 9, 2017; and (b) on March 15, 2017, the date on which the Plaintiff actually received the outpatient treatment from the department of mental health of a C Hospital;
3.16.
4.5.
4. A disposition was taken to the effect that the payment of temporary layoff benefits is made only on 13.0 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant dispositions” in each of the dispositions described in paragraphs (b) and (c) above.
【Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4, respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion continues to receive a mental treatment related to depression even after each of the dispositions in this case was issued, and the symptoms have deteriorated rather than before, and thus, continuous treatment is needed, and employment is also impossible.
Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case issued under the premise that the plaintiff's symptoms were fixed, and employment is possible, must be revoked as it is unlawful.
B. In fact, the Plaintiff, on November 27, 2014, intended to prevent the aggravation of the symptoms, and to improve the symptoms, from November 27, 2014 to February 26, 2015.