beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.05.11 2016구단9971

재요양및추가상병불승인처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 29, 194, the Plaintiff received medical treatment from the Defendant during the occupational accident, and received treatment from the Defendant during the period from July 29, 1994 to October 31, 1996. On May 26, 2004, the Plaintiff received the 8th grade of the disability grade, after receiving the treatment from the Defendant during the period from July 29, 1994 to the period from October 24, 2004, and received the treatment from the Defendant after obtaining the approval of medical treatment from the Defendant. On May 27, 2004, the Plaintiff received the 3rdum and tension injury (hereinafter “the 2nd injury disease”). < Amended by Act No. 7213, May 27, 2004>

B. On November 6, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) caused brain damage, brain injury or mental disorders beyond brain function (hereinafter “additional Injury”); and (b) on January 11, 2016, due to the second approved injury, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care with the Defendant for the 4-5 ex post facto ex post facto injury and re-treatment on the following following diagnosis: (a) the vertebrogate stability, throgism, and the left-hand part-hand part of the verterogate (hereinafter “second additional injury”); and (b) the Plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care.

C. Accordingly, on December 7, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of additional medical care (for example, “instant 1 disposition” and “instant 2 disposition”) on the grounds that there is no causal link between the main sentence of the first approval and the first additional disease on March 24, 2016 and the second additional disease on March 24, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in the instant disposition based on a different premise, even if the causal link between the first and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the subsequent and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second are

(b).