산업재해추가상병불승인처분취소
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 July 7, 2015, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the instant accident, i.e., f., f., f., f., e., e., f., f., f., f., f., g., f., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g
B. On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an additional injury and disease application with the Defendant regarding “the instant additional injury and disease” (hereinafter “instant additional injury and disease”). However, on December 1, 2015, the Defendant issued a non-approval disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to recognize causation between the instant additional injury and accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff got a pain to the extent that the Plaintiff was unable to drive the shoulder due to the instant accident, while the Plaintiff got a pain after receiving the last medical treatment on April 2013, since there were no pains on the shoulder part, and was going to undergo a surgery.
In other words, the plaintiff suffered additional injury from the accident of this case, and even if the additional injury was caused by the accident of this case, the symptoms of this case significantly aggravated due to the accident of this case. Thus, the additional injury has causation with the accident of this case.
B. The application for additional injury and disease under Article 49 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is an application for medical care for a new injury and disease additionally confirmed after obtaining the approval of the first medical care due to an occupational accident. It is recognized that there is a proximate causal relation between the occupational accident where the first injury and disease were incurred, or the first injury and the first approval branch, and such proximate causal relation should be proved by the party asserting it.
As to the instant case, No. 3 is the Health Unit and No. 3.