요양불승인처분취소
1. On January 19, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval for medical care rendered to the Plaintiff is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From February 1972, the Plaintiff served as a mining source B, etc., and retired on December 31, 2010.
B. On July 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act with the purport that “The instant injury was caused by the instant injury and disease by performing a long-time work for about 36 years in the course of performing carbon work for the Defendant at around 36 years,” claiming that “The instant injury and disease was caused by the Defendant,” on the ground that “The instant injury and disease was diagnosed as the field of the check for the left part (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”).”
C. However, on January 19, 2017, the Defendant applied for medical care benefits as above (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on August 28, 2015, but the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of medical care pursuant to the Seoul Committee for Determination of Medical Care Benefits (No. 2986), on September 17, 2015, pursuant to the judgment of the Seoul Committee for Determination of Medical Care Benefits (No. 2015 Decision No. 2034) on September 17, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of medical care pursuant to the judgment of the Seoul Committee for Determination of Medical Care Benefits (No. 2015 Decision No. 2034) on September 17, 2015.
AB made it.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion carried out a job that is unreasonable to shoulder the mine for about 36 years. This is deemed to have a major cause for the occurrence of the injury or disease of this case.
Nevertheless, the instant disposition that did not recognize a proximate causal relationship with the trade branch of this case is unlawful.
B. Determination 1: The proximate causal relation between the work and the accident to recognize the occupational accident under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is applicable.