진료계획불승인 처분 및 치료종결처분 취소
1. The part of the instant lawsuit concerning the completion of treatment shall be dismissed.
2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.
3...
1. The Plaintiff received medical care from the Defendant for an occupational disease on the grounds that the Plaintiff had “sulve disability” (Disaster Day: March 14, 2004).
(Authorized Medical Care Period: (a) On August 24, 2008, to June 30, 2015, B Hospital, which the Plaintiff had received medical care, submitted to the Defendant a medical treatment plan for the Plaintiff’s public interest disorder as “from July 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015” regarding the Plaintiff’s public interest disorder.
On June 11, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the above medical treatment plan on the ground that it is reasonable to terminate the treatment by fixing symptoms to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “First Disposition”) On April 4, 2016, B hospital submitted to the Defendant a medical treatment plan with respect to the Plaintiff’s public interest disorder, “from October 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015; and from January 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016, the expected hospitalization period.”
On April 14, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the above medical treatment plan on the ground that it is a fixed state of symptoms to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “Second Disposition”). 【No dispute exists, A’s evidence Nos. 1 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The existence of an administrative disposition, which is subject to litigation in administrative litigation as to whether the part of the disposition for the closure of treatment among the lawsuit in this case is lawful, is subject to ex officio investigation as a litigation requirement and cannot be the confession.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15499, Jul. 27, 1993). There is no evidence to deem that the Defendant rendered a treatment termination disposition against the Plaintiff on June 11, 2015, in addition to the first treatment.
In the lawsuit of this case, the part of the treatment termination disposition is unlawful as it seeks revocation of the non-existent administrative disposition.
[Supplementary measures taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on June 11, 2015, in addition to the first disposition, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part cannot be accepted, as long as the symptoms of a yellow disorder have been fixed as follows, and the reasons for the completion of treatment exist.] 3. 3. Whether the first and second disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff needs to receive a continuous medical treatment for a yellow disability, and both subparagraphs 1 and 2 are imposed.