logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.08.12 2019구단62430
요양불승인처분취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of medical care rendered to the Plaintiff on October 18, 2018 is revoked.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 1, 2016, the Plaintiff joined the instant company B (hereinafter “instant company”) and was dispatched to C Hospital (hereinafter “ Hospital”) from around that time, and performed street cleaners’ work, such as cleaning and garbage removal.

B. On August 14, 2018, at around 18:10, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “brain color and right malibbs” (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”) in the form of being melted on the floor with snow at the rest area for the employees of the hospital at around 18:10.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with respect to the instant injury and disease with the Defendant on October 18, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on October 18, 2018, stating that “The business hours do not meet the criteria, and rapid changes have not been observed prior to physical and mental outbreak, as well as the occupational short-term and chronic factors are not visible, and it is difficult to view the instant injury and disease as an occurrence due to the lack of a sudden change in business environment due to the lack of a sudden change, and it is difficult to view the instant injury and disease as a work-related situation is low, and there is no proximate causal relation with the work.”

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for reexamination on November 30, 2018, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee rendered a dismissal ruling on March 18, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the place of service was changed from the funeral hall of the hospital prior to the occurrence of the instant injury to an emergency ward, and the physical and mental burden was increased due to the change of the place of service to an emergency ward. The Plaintiff worked for a long time than the working hours stipulated in the labor contract due to early departure and occupation trial

As above, in the situation where the plaintiff's physical and mental skin has accumulated, the weather on the same day is highest.

arrow