beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.07.04 2017구단64531

요양불승인처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A, on September 13, 2015, among workers under the jurisdiction of the D Hospital Funeral Service (hereinafter “instant place of business”), intended to take care of the toilet in the instant place of business on or around September 17, 2015, in the process of providing funeral guidance services, store management, cleaning, etc., and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on February 11, 2016, following the diagnosis of the “cerebrovascular, cerebrovascular, cerebrovascular, cerebrovascular, and cerebrscular (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

B. On May 23, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to non-approval of medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) according to the results of the deliberation by the Occupational Disease Determination Committee, that “The Defendant: (a) is unable to confirm special occupational factors to induce the instant injury while performing the funeral guidance work that A was in charge of; (b) is deemed to have performed daily work; (c) is deemed to have performed daily work; and (d) in the case of A, personal diseases, such as high blood pressure and dyssis, etc. are confirmed as a result of health examination conducted on August 12, 2015; (b) is deemed to have occurred due to the natural aggravation of such existing disease.”

(c) A was dissatisfied with this and filed a review and a request for review, but was dismissed, respectively.

A A died on December 19, 2017, while the instant lawsuit was pending, on December 19, 2017 (hereinafter “A”), and the Plaintiffs, co-inheritors of the deceased, taken over the instant litigation proceedings.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On June 2, 2012, the deceased’s summary of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was serving 61.25 hours a week average by not later than March 2014, and served as a day-day system for 24 hours after entering the office on June 2, 2012, and directed a chronic course.

From April 2014, 26 hours work hours are 46 hours off.