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. The Plaintiff is an employee who belongs to the wife B C (hereinafter “instant place of business”) located in Young-si, Young-si (hereinafter “instant place of business”).
B. On April 10, 2018, when the Plaintiff was traveling a business trip to eternal City, the Plaintiff was transferred to an emergency room due to symptoms breaking his own left part of the car, bridge, etc., and the Seoul National University Hospital of Subdivision received a diagnosis of “the brain wing light color and brain cerebral brain homicide (hereinafter “the instant injury”). The Plaintiff filed an application for medical care with the Defendant after receiving the diagnosis of “the instant injury and disease.”
C. On July 31, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to recognize the instant injury and disease as an occupational disease due to the following reasons.
The plaintiff seems to have worked as a dual worker before the outbreak, and the physical labor strength was high. However, the plaintiff performed ordinary duties within 24 hours prior to the outbreak in the investigation into stress, not objectively confirmed the occurrence of unexpected and difficult incidents related to the plaintiff's duties and the occupational stress prior to the outbreak, etc., and examined the work hours prior to the outbreak date. The plaintiff's average work hours per week prior to the outbreak, 40 hours per week prior to the outbreak, 40 hours per week average work hours, 41 hours per week continuous physical and mental burden prior to the outbreak, respectively, and 40 hours per week average work hours per week during 12 weeks prior to the outbreak, and 41 hours and 20 minutes, are not objectively confirmed.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. On September 4, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she had been employed in the instant workplace and engaged in the manufacture and supply of tape-making machinery and the repair of machinery.
The plaintiff has been engaged in the above work as a team unit with three members, and the plaintiff has been engaged in the work from March 2018 to March 3, 2018.