[요양불승인처분취소][공1997.12.15.(48),3887]
[1] Requirements for additional medical care and the meaning of proximate causal relation in medical science, and the method and degree of proof
[2] The case holding that where a reporter of a broadcasting station who received the first medical care due to a sexual cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral mal mar and received diagnosis of a malicious malmal malmalmal marma and applied for additional medical care, there
[1] Whether the measure of non-approval of the additional medical care is lawful shall be determined based on whether it conforms to the purport of Article 40 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. The additional medical care is not different from the first medical care except that the pertinent injury or disease occurs after the completion of the medical care, or that the latter is a medical care provided after the completion of the medical care. Thus, the requirements of the additional medical care do not meet the requirements of the additional medical care, except that the medical care is provided after the completion of the medical care. Therefore, the requirements of the additional medical care are recognized as having a proximate causal relationship between the first injury or the first injury or disease which applied for the additional medical care in addition to the requirements of the medical care, and there is a medical opinion that the medical treatment effect can be expected by the aggravation of the symptoms compared to the injury or disease at the time of the completion of the medical care or the payment of the additional medical care due to the aggravation of the symptoms at the time of the first injury or disease. From the medical point of view of the proximate causal relationship in this context, the first injury or disease is a relatively significant cause in accordance with the medical evidence.
[2] The case holding that, even if the first medical care has been caused by the cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal alphal
[1] Article 40 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 40 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement
[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9030 delivered on December 13, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 511), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12326 delivered on September 15, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3418), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1875 delivered on March 28, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1263)
Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Sam-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)
Korea Labor Welfare Corporation
Daegu High Court Decision 96Gu3204 delivered on July 25, 1997
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are also examined.
Whether a disposition not to grant additional medical care is lawful shall be determined by whether it conforms to the purport of Article 40 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994). The additional medical care is not different from that of the first medical care except that of the first medical care and its nature after the completion of the medical care, or that of the first medical care due to a merger of the relevant injury or disease. Thus, the requirements for additional medical care do not differ from those of the first medical care, except that of the medical care provided after the completion of the medical care. Therefore, the requirements for additional medical care are recognized as having a proximate causal relationship between the first medical care and the first medical care application for additional medical care, and there is a medical opinion that the medical care becomes effective by aggravation of the symptoms compared to the first injury or disease condition at the time of the completion of the medical care or the payment of disability benefits. From the point of view of proximate causal relation in this context, it is relatively sufficient to prove that there are 97 medical evidence directly related to the first medical treatment application.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it is hard to view that there were no causation between the deceased's first and the 1995 metropic cerebral cerebral typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhalphal typhalphal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)