beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.12.15 2015구단1507

추가상병불승인처분취소청구

Text

1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of part of the additional injury and disease that the Plaintiff rendered on July 2, 2014 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 4, 2013, the Plaintiff received medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act from the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was followed by the vehicle while operating the vehicle, while performing waste collection work on September 4, 2013 (hereinafter “instant accident”). By September 22, 2014, the Plaintiff received medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act for “the instant approved disease” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant approved disease”).

B. On June 9, 2014, when the Plaintiff was under medical care, the Plaintiff applied for an additional injury to the “surgical signboard escape certificate No. 4-5 of the도요, the right-to- right-hand climatic clisome, and the cerebral cerebral chromosome damage.”

C. On July 2, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition not to approve the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that, among the foregoing additional injury to the Plaintiff, “the explosive signboard escape certificate No. 4-5 of the Meetical pathy,” the Defendant approved “the right-hand pathyal pathy”, and that, with respect to the remainder “the additional injury to the cerebral cerebral Bribery” (hereinafter “the instant additional injury”), there is no reasonable neological opinion immediately after the instant accident, and the MFI’s results indicate that the cerebral cerebral image using images is not proved to be academicly reasonable.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “disposition of this case”), . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion showed symptoms, such as serious brusium, memory decline, recognition function degradation, recognition function degradation on both sides, depression, depression, etc., which were caused by a strong shock at the time of the instant accident.