요양불승인처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 12, 2017, the Plaintiff diagnosed chronic pulmonary disease (hereinafter “instant injury”) at a medical clinic within B, and filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on June 5, 2017.
B. On August 20, 2018, the Defendant issued a medical care non-approval disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the first rate of the first day (FEV1/FVC) as a result of the waste function examination was 51% and the first day (FEV1) was 63%, and the Plaintiff was exposed to nitrogen gas, etc. generated during the coal and the determined-type free acid dust and blasting work, while serving as coal, coal, major, etc. for the nine and a half years, but the period of coal work was shorter than three years and ten months, and the total cumulative exposure was less than the exposure level, thereby failing to meet the standard of diagnosis of the injury and disease.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff worked in the mining center for about nine years and five months; (b) the injury or disease rate of the instant injury or disease was not significantly different; (c) the injury or disease of this case occurred after a long period of time was performed under the inferior environment in the sealed space; and (d) the Plaintiff’s smoking alone is difficult to deem that the injury or disease of this case occurred; and (c) it is deemed that the Plaintiff’s injury or disease of this case was deepened as a result of a rise in dust from smoking and work; (d) there was a proximate causal link between the Plaintiff’s duties and the occurrence of the injury or disease of this case, which was conducted on a different premise.
B. Fact 1) The Plaintiff’s mining center work experience from October 26, 1964 to January 25, 1970 (the period during which the Plaintiff performed coal collection work is about 3 years and 10 months, respectively).