재요양불승인처분취소
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.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “the Act”) delegated by Article 51(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which deviates from the scope of delegation, arbitrarily reduces the scope of recognition of additional medical care as provided by the Act by adding the requirements for recognition of additional medical care under Article 51(1) of the Act, such as “the degree of deterioration” and “the expectation of treatment effects,” and thus, it is unconstitutional by deviating from the scope of delegation.
Therefore, the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for re-treatment on the ground that it failed to meet the requirements prescribed in Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act is unlawful.
B. Even if the Plaintiff’s requirements for recognition of additional medical care are not met, Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act should be interpreted to the extent of supplementing the requirements for recognition of additional medical care under Article 51(1) of the Act.
On April 14, 1979, the Plaintiff already obtained approval for medical care from the Defendant on the 16th day of the same month due to a disease, such as a disaster in the instant case, which occurred on April 14, 1979, and subsequently, the Plaintiff was in need of active medical care for the protection of the Dack in the Distress on July 2017 due to the recurrence or aggravation of both sides. Therefore, the Plaintiff met all the requirements for recognition of additional medical care under Article 51 of the Act and Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.
Therefore, the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for approval of additional medical care on different premise is unlawful.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. Article 51(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides, “The relevant legal doctrine regarding whether a person who received medical care benefits deviates from the scope of delegation under Article 48(1) of the Act may again receive medical care benefits under Article 40 if there exists a medical opinion that a person who received the medical care benefits needs to receive active medical treatment to cure the occupational injury or disease re-exploited or worse than the time of cure.”
The subject of such additional medical care.