beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.09.21 2016구단59709

공무상요양불승인처분취소

Text

1. On May 23, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s non-approval of medical care for official duties.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff was in charge of the operation of the main text reading room B and the protection of the office building.

On February 21, 2016, at around 06:30 on Sundays 06:30, a bus in the opposite direction was boarded, and was set off from the platform to board a transfer bus (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). As a result of the examination at the hospital, the hospital applied for approval for medical treatment of the instant injury by “the instant accident” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant injury”).

Considering that the Defendant’s medical view, based on the records of injury and disease, video materials, etc. submitted to the Plaintiff on May 23, 2016, the Defendant considered the Plaintiff’s disease as the blood volume on February 21, 2016, and deemed that the instant injury and disease, which is the Plaintiff’s disease, was not caused by the credit incurred from the platform on the day of the injury and not by the credit incurred prior to the considerable period of time, is the opinion of the Public Official Pension Benefit Deliberation Committee.

In 2014, prior to the date of the instant injury and medical care benefits, medical care was provided as “cerebral cerebral typhism in which the injury and injury were unknown,” and in 2015, medical care was provided as “other unemployed and deadly”, and in 2014 and 2015, medical care was provided 66 times and 124 times each under the name of the sick whose name the diagnosis was not indicated.

On February 21, 2016, which is the sick and Disease Day, the statement "two times more than once" is recorded on the record book of medical obligation.

Considering this comprehensively, the plaintiff's disease seems to have a chronic brain disease (cerebrovascular, cerebrovascular, etc.), regardless of official duties, is also the opinion of the Public Official Pension Benefit Council.

Therefore, it is reasonable between disease and official duty.