logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.09.20 2018구단24585
요양불승인처분취소
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. From July 3, 2017 to December 29, 2017, the Plaintiff is a person who participated in a public labor business conducted by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Sports Facilities Management Office and performed landscaping management work in B.

The plaintiff's opinion that the objective grounds for supporting the diagnosis of infection by the left-hand side have not been verified because the special opinion is not observed under the supervision of the left-hand side of X-ray image, and the radiation image cannot be verified by the examination of the evidence of revolving the left-hand side.

In this regard, the left-hand-hand-hand-hand side is not related to the duties because it is difficult to view the plaintiff's duties as a work imposing a burden on the elbow due to the lack of a change in the escape of the left-hand-hand side.

Although there is a minority opinion that the Plaintiff’s symptoms of revolving the left-hand check for about six months, even though it was short of the period of cleaning the fallen leaves, the Plaintiff’s repeated work of loading and leaving the fallen leaves in a short period by inserting it in a short time, and thus, business relevance is recognized. However, considering the Plaintiff’s age, duty, frequency of work, etc., even if the applicant’s disease is not verified due to his/her intention and the applicant’s disease recognizes the existence of the applicant’s disease, considering the Plaintiff’s age, duty, and frequency of work, there is no proximate causal relation between the above branches of work, even if it is difficult to deem that the injury or disease was rapidly aggravated due to the Plaintiff’s work or has become worse at a natural speed.

B. On February 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits for the medical certificate issued by the left-hand doctor, the left-hand doctor, and the certificate issued by the lower-hand doctor (hereinafter “each of the instant diseases”). However, on September 10, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant medical care for the following reasons.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On September 1, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on September 11, 2018.

arrow