장해등급재판정결정처분취소
1. On July 8, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of determining the re-determination of a disability grade against the Plaintiff is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff, while serving as an employee E.S. employee, was diagnosed as “cerebral cerebrovascular cerebrovascular” due to an occupational accident that occurred on March 9, 2010, and was under medical care by January 11, 2013 with the Defendant’s approval for medical care.
B. On January 18, 2013, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff as a person subject to re-determination of a disability grade No. 2 subparag. 5 of the disability grade corresponding to “a person who needs to have an obvious impediment to his/her mental function or mental function from time to time to time undergo nursing.” On the same day, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff as a person subject to re-determination of a disability grade (the re-determination period: January 19, 2015; January 18, 2016).
C. On May 8, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to set the disability grade (hereinafter “instant disposition”) with the purport that the Plaintiff changed the Plaintiff’s disability grade from class 5 to class 3 Subparagraph 3 of class 2 (a person who is not able to engage in long-term labor due to considerable impediments to the function or mental function of the new social system) on July 8, 2015, based on the written opinion of the Integrated Review Board at the Daegu National University Hospital, which had a defect in applying for re-determination of the disability grade.
The Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Defendant on July 2015, but the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for review on October 5, 2015, following deliberation by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee. On October 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee on October 26, 2015, but the petition for review was dismissed on November 26, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 8 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's 1, 2, 4, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion is a person who needs to receive constant nursing from time to time due to a significant trouble in the function or mental function of the neurosis and falls under class 5 of the disability grade. However, the plaintiff's assertion is on a different premise.