장해보상등급판정
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On April 11, 2010, the Plaintiff felled in dismantling a retaining wall concrete installed at a construction site located in the Southern-gun, Southern-gun, and received medical treatment approval from the Plaintiff from April 11, 2010 to September 30, 201.
Around September 30, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for extension of the period of medical care from September 5, 201 to March 4, 2012. Around October 20, 2011, the Defendant decided on the Plaintiff’s completion of medical care from September 5, 201 to January 31, 201.
On January 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a medical treatment plan with the purport that “A request for medical treatment, such as medication, is necessary for the treatment of the injury or disease of this case from January 1, 2012 to December 30, 2012, because the Plaintiff was in a state of not forming the bones between 10 and 12 after performing an operation after chest 11.” The Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the application for the above medical treatment plan on the ground that it is reasonable to terminate the treatment after the symptoms of the injury or disease of this case were fixed to the Plaintiff until January 31, 2012.
(B) On January 14, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking revocation of the previous disposition (Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap1362). On August 30, 2013, the said court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal (Seoul High Court 2013Nu2919) and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2015Du13461) on the premise that the Plaintiff’s symptoms are fixed and thus, the Defendant’s non-approval of the medical treatment plan for extension of the period of medical care is lawful, on the premise that the effect of medical care cannot be expected any longer. The foregoing ruling became final and conclusive on February 2, 2015.
On February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff claimed disability benefits to the Defendant.
On March 25, 2015, the defendant decided that the disability grade of the plaintiff was the 11st grade of the functional disability of the scarke-do and the 10th grade of the scarke-do that applied mutatis mutandis the 11st grade of the scarke-do.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”).