요양급여불승인처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From December 27, 2017 to January 10, 2018, the Plaintiff conducted landscaping business at the site of a C hotel under the control of B, and on February 5, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits by asserting that he/she was diagnosed with the lower court’s judgment that, around 14:00 on January 2, 2018, he/she had a tools and implements at the construction site and went beyond ices while moving to the workplace (hereinafter “instant accident”). As a result, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with the lower court’s judgment that he/she was diagnosed with the lower court as follows.
B. On March 9, 2018, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff on March 9, 2018 the salt knee’s full-time and tension, and "the instant disposition" refers only to the measure of non-approval of the medical care benefits for the instant injury among the above decisions, referring to only the measure of non-approval of the medical care benefits for the instant injury, on the ground that "the knee’s full-time and full-time knee’s full-time kne’s right snee is not proven by normal opinions, and that the operation of the knee sle-time is against the existing disease (in the absence of any causal relation with the instant accident)" and that there is no causal relation with the instant accident.
(C) The Plaintiff filed a petition for review against the Defendant on June 25, 2018. The Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s petition for review on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition. [The purport of the entirety of the arguments and arguments, including the facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and Eul’
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's act of this case was caused by the accident of this case under the condition that knee is deteriorated while the plaintiff was performing his duties, and even when using the transport equipment, the plaintiff's act of this case was repeated. Thus, the disposition of this case was unlawful.
The plaintiff.