logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.06.18 2018구단78162
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. The plaintiff (B) is working for 32 years at the mining center.

On December 31, 2012, a person retired from office was diagnosed on September 19, 2017, as “the field of the instant injury and disease” (hereinafter “the instant field of injury and disease”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with respect to the instant injury and disease with the Defendant, but on December 19, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) based on the results of deliberation by the Committee for Determination of Occupational Diseases as follows. The Plaintiff confirmed the work experience of the mining center for about 32 years, but the final withdrawal date of the mining center was December 31, 2012, and the final withdrawal date of the mining center was confirmed during the period from February 2, 2016 to September 30, 2017. The physical burden is not verified during the extended period prior to the date of the examination of medical records and video medical records, and it is difficult to find a proximate causal relationship with the Plaintiff on the duty as a result of examining the medical records and video medical records. (c) Although the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Defendant on May 17, 2018, it is difficult to find the proximate causal causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work and the 4-year emergency response.

“The Plaintiff’s request for review was dismissed due to the reasons D.

Therefore, although the plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, the plaintiff's request for reexamination was dismissed on August 30, 2018.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff suffered physical burden on the shoulder while working in the 32-year mining center as a mountain unit, etc., was accumulated, or the disease in this case occurred or at a speed above the natural progress.

arrow