요양급여부지급처분취소
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 October 4, 1994, the Plaintiff entered the LG chemical B plant (hereinafter “instant plant”) and worked as a person who bears a burden on the timber and lusium due to the process, recovery process, BOARD work, building process, etc. in PVC E-3, 4, K-4, 5, and 6 rooms, and entered the medical institution on January 18, 201 (as a result of the examination and treatment of the medical institution on April 4, 2011 (as approximately 19 years and 6 months), No. 3-4, 3-4, 3-4, 3-4, 3-4, 5-6, 5-1, 5-6, 3-5, 46, 5-1, 5-5, and 5-1, 5-5, and 5-1, 5-5, and 5-1, 194.
2. On 14. The medical institution’s medical examination and treatment results from the outbreak of the right pain and the sense of proposition, and was diagnosed with the escape certificate No. 3-4, the conical signboard escape certificate No. 4-5, the conical signboard escape certificate No. 5-5, the conical signboard expansion between the 5th century-1,000, and the conical confluence (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant injury and disease”). This assertion that it is a disease caused by occupational accidents and filed an application for medical care benefits to the Defendant on July 11, 2013.
B. However, on October 10, 2013, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in accordance with the results of deliberation by the Gwangju Occupational Disease Determination Committee, that “The Defendant’s examination of the content of business, etc. shows that the application for medical care benefits is not well-known with the chronic pressure against the escape and expansion of drilling among the applied injury and is deemed as an individual disease, and that there is insufficient causal link between the work and the injury and injury, considering the content of the work, attitude, strength, etc., and thus, it is not sufficient to view it as the work and the burden of the injury and injury.”
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was a healthy youth at the time of his/her entry and received any treatment or surgery until before the diagnosis was conducted on April 4, 201.