최초요양급여불승인처분취소
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 June 10, 2010, the Plaintiff (B) was a construction worker, who was diagnosed as “the part of the part on the side part of the non-lopped part of the non-lopped part of the unit,” due to an accident in which the stairs are up and shocked at the site of apartment construction (hereinafter “instant accident”). From June 11, 2010 to October 10, 2010, the Plaintiff was treated with the Defendant’s medical care benefits approval.
B. However, on February 22, 2012, the Plaintiff was diagnosed at the Hospital annexed to the National Foundation of the Korea National University as “Isk-4 Nos. 3-4 and 4-5 each conical signboard escape certificate (hereinafter “the instant injury”) and “Isk-5,” and filed an application for additional medical care benefits with the Defendant on June 22, 2012, by deeming that the hydro-type nuclear back of the instant injury was an additional accident related to the instant accident, and the Defendant did not approve the application for additional medical care benefits on September 18, 2012.
Accordingly, on December 14, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the non-approval of an additional injury or disease, but on May 1, 2014, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a judgment (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan29526) against the first instance court, and on January 15, 2015, the appellate court was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the appeal (Seoul High Court Decision 2914Nu4520).
C. On the other hand, on April 24, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant injury to the Defendant was a disease-related accident caused by the Plaintiff’s work, and again filed an application for the first medical care benefit for the instant injury to the Defendant (it is evident that the Plaintiff filed an application for the first medical care benefit for the instant injury only to the instant injury, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2. However, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is evident that the Plaintiff filed an application for the first medical care benefit only to the instant injury), and the Defendant decided not to approve the Plaintiff’s application on June 24, 2014 on the ground that proximate causal relation between the instant injury and the Plaintiff’s work is not acknowledged (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Nos. 1 and 2 are in dispute.