고엽제후유(의)증환자장애등급결정취소
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 February 7, 1970, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged on October 19, 1971 through October 27, 1972 from Vietnam War, and was registered as a patient suffering from potential aftereffects of defoliants on April 25, 1996 by filing an application for registration of defoliants patients on June 14, 1973.
B. On April 2, 2014, the Plaintiff again filed an application for registration of patients suffering from defoliants with the Defendant, and was determined as “waste cancer” as a result of a new physical examination conducted by the Central Veterans Hospital (hereinafter the instant injury), and as at Grade 6, Grade 6, Paragraph 3, and Paragraph 5110 of Article 511 of the Disability Ratings (a person with functional disorder by saving or extracting chest organs, etc.).
C. On September 25, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for a re-examination on the determination of the above disability rating. The Central Veterans Hospital conducted a re-examination on November 17, 2014, and determined the Plaintiff’s disability rating as the same grade as that of the previous 6th 3th 5110. The Board of Patriots and Veterans also decided on April 1, 2015. Accordingly, on April 20, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to determine the Plaintiff’s disability rating as 6th 510 (hereinafter the instant disposition) (hereinafter the instant disposition).
The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on April 28, 2015, but was dismissed on August 11, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4, 7, Eul 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is significantly limited to the labor ability due to the instant wound, and the Plaintiff’s medical treatment rate is low due to the characteristics of the instant wound, and thus, is highly likely to deteriorate the situation due to the possibility of recurrence, transfer, and merger.
Therefore, even though the Plaintiff’s disability rating is higher than that of Class 6(3) and 5110, the Defendant’s disability rating is lower than that of Grade 6(3). However, the Defendant’s disability rating is lower than that of the Plaintiff on the sole basis of the fact that the Defendant did not grasp the Plaintiff’s condition