요양불승인처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From July 1, 2010, the Plaintiff worked for Dlim Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dlim Co., Ltd.”) and carried out the work of attaching a straw and inputting bar codes.
B. On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff, while working in the non-party company’s place of business on April 20, 2014, showed the current state of left armsbridge math and old language disorder, was sent to the Ulsan National University Hospital and received treatment, and thereafter, was diagnosed as “cerebral Color” (hereinafter “the instant injury disease”).
C. On June 11, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant injury or disease was caused by his/her duties, and filed an application for medical care benefits. However, on July 16, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “I cannot find a proximate causal relation between the instant injury or disease and the duty of the instant injury or disease, as it does not seem to have any special stress or unexpected situation.”
On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for review against the Defendant. The Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for review on October 28, 2014, and the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on December 19, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1, 8, 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff worked in excess of an average of 60 hours per week at the request of the non-party company, and it is evident that such long-term work itself can be unreasonable to the worker's body, especially cerebrovascular, so the plaintiff's work constitutes "the work that imposes a burden on the body" under Article 37 (1) 2 (a) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and there is a proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's brain color
Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful.