요양불승인처분취소
1. On July 10, 2018, the Defendant revoked the disposition of non-approval for medical care granted to the Plaintiff.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 25, 2017 and October 25, 2017, while working for B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant workplace”) on May 19, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on February 3, 2018, alleging that “The 3/4 Twitchosis, the 4/5 Twitchosis, the 4/5 Twitterosis, the 4/5 Twitterosis, the 4/4 Twitch escape certificate, the 3/5 Twitch escape certificate, the 4/5 Twitch escape certificate, and the 4/5 Twitch escape certificate (hereinafter “the 1 through 6 M&C,” referred to as “the 4/5 M&C,” respectively. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24200, Feb. 3, 2018>
B. On July 10, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition not to grant medical treatment to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Committee for Determination of the Injury and Disease in Busan, ① the injury and disease of the first through fourth is confirmed, and the Plaintiff’s duties are determined as a blick work, but it is difficult to determine that the Plaintiff’s tasks were working as the main person of the present injury and disease for about three years in full, taking account of robbery, frequency, cumulative weight, total work hours, etc., and ② the duty relevance is low; ② the injury and disease of the fifth and the sixth injury and the sixth injury and the sixth injury and disease of the instant case do not seem to be seen as being faster than the natural progress, and it is judged that there is no proximate causal relation with their duties,” on the ground that the Defendant rendered a ruling not to grant medical treatment.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
On January 21, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee, but the said Committee dismissed the request for review on January 21, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, Eul evidence No. 11, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① With respect to the handling of heavy objects, the Plaintiff directly entered the valves up to 50 km while working in the assembly pressure test division, and thereafter thereafter from the project team.