재요양불승인처분취소
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of additional medical care rendered to the Plaintiff on February 21, 2012 is revoked.
3...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On November 4, 1997, the Plaintiff was employed and worked in B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) on November 4, 1997, and was returned to the Emergency Service Center of Abscined Hospital on March 10, 200 and then sent back to the Emergency Service Center of Abscined Hospital on the following day. As a result of the diagnosis, the Plaintiff was found to be the brain border (hereinafter “the first injury”).
With respect to the first injury and disease of this case, the Plaintiff obtained medical care approval from the Defendant due to occupational accidents, and received the judgment of class 9 of the disability grade after the completion of medical care on August 9, 2002.
B. On October 19, 201, the Plaintiff received a diagnosis of the brain cirral brain cirrosis (hereinafter “the instant injury”). As a result, the Plaintiff conducted the RI test at the Ulsan C Hospital on the left-hand cirropic cirropic cirropic cirropic cirropic cirropic cirral
C. On January 9, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care with the Defendant on the ground of the foregoing diagnosis, but the Defendant, on February 21, 2012, issued a disposition of non-approval of additional medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s application for additional medical care does not have any requirements for recognition of additional medical care and any medical proximate causal relation.”
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. After the Plaintiff’s first injury and disease occurred on March 10, 200, the first injury and disease occurred to the Plaintiff, and the recent injury and disease occurred. Thus, even if the injury and disease occurred differently, it is difficult to view that the injury and disease occurred differently, and the risk factor is the same. Thus, the first injury and disease occurred on the extension line of the first injury and disease in the past.
Therefore, since there is a proximate causal relation between the two, the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.
B. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff entered around November 4, 1997 as a member of the Plaintiff around November 4, 1997 and entered the first injury and disease in this case.