beta
(영문) 대전고등법원 2016.04.25 2015누13596

요양불승인처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 21, 2014 to March 12, 2014, the Plaintiff, as B students, performed civil engineering works on the site of “E apartment construction work site” by Dongbu Construction Co., Ltd., “E apartment construction project site”, under the jurisdiction of Jeong Construction Co., Ltd., a subcontractor company.

B. On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as an injury or disease of “in the instant injury or disease” (hereinafter “instant injury or disease”) in the field of the stowing stoke, the left stoke s to the left stoke, and the stoke stoke s to the left stoke stoke.

다. 원고는 2014. 3. 24. 피고에게 “원고가 2014. 2. 10. 10:00경 관로작업장 사각맨홀 설치 중 유로폼 600폼을 들어 동료작업자에게 건네는 과정에서 어깨로부터 쩡하는 통증과 함께 심한 고통이 일어났다(이하 ‘이 사건 재해’라 한다).”는 이유로 이 사건 상병에 대한 요양급여신청을 하였다. 라.

On April 9, 2014, the Defendant rendered a non-approval of the application for medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the instant accident cannot be recognized as proximate causal relation between the disaster situation and the injury and disease of the instant case.”

E. On the other hand, on April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “damage to the girth’s gire of the shoulder belt and the power lines, heat,” and was performed on April 29, 2014 by the F Hospital’s operation of the gire gire gireing girculing girth around the gire.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 11, and 12 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred, but was aware that it would soon be recovered, and continued to perform a simple drug at a pharmacy with the intent to be recovered. Unlike the expected recovery, the Plaintiff did not receive recovery from the hospital on March 3, 2014, and received a diagnosis of the instant injury, and received an operation, such as a fladying and fladying surgery.

The injury or disease of this case is a disaster of this case.