2014Gudan57907 Revocation of Disposition of Non-approval for Medical Treatment for Public Duties

west ○

Madden Madon-si

Attorney Seo-young et al., Counsel for the defendant

The Government Employees Pension Service

Seoul Gangnam-gu 508 Jinju 508

Representative President Choi Jae-sik

Litigation Performers Kim Jin-jin

September 23, 2015

December 11, 2015

1. On August 14, 2014, the Defendant revoked on August 14, 2014 the part on the 6-7 occasions in the radius of the escape certificate, among the measures not approved for medical care due to official duties, against the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 50% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder 50% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of medical care for official duties rendered to the Plaintiff on August 14, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 3, 2014, while the Plaintiff was working as a driver of a school for children at a different elementary school, the Plaintiff was driving a large passenger vehicle of 78 low-income 9798, which is a children's school vehicle from 07:35 to 08: 08: 25 to 11:00, while driving a separate school for children, the Plaintiff was driving a separate bus of 78:9798, which was a children's school, and returned to a vehicle support business trip for nearby high schools from 08:25 to 11:0,00, while driving a separate bus of 15:20,000 to 15:20,000, 3:000 poppy village of the instant case where the instant 4:4:00 poppy village of the instant bus of the instant case was killed and wounded at the 4:00 poppy village of the instant accident.

B. On June 4, 2014, the following day of the instant accident, the Plaintiff received medical treatment at the Emergency Medical Center of the Macheon Medical Center and the Seoul Korean Hospital. On July 25, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval of medical treatment for an injury or disease on the part of the Defendant, i.e., salt and tension in the c., c., the c., the c., the c., the c., the c., the c., the c., the c., the c., the c., the c., the c., the c., the c. and the c., the c., the c., the c., the c.i., the c., the c. and the c., the c., the c.,

C. However, on August 14, 2014, the Defendant approved medical care for the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (a) on the ground that: (b) MRI (self-defluent image) No. 6 - seven times (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”); and (c) on the ground that it is difficult to regard the pertinent injury and disease as the first injury and disease as the first injury and disease; (d) on the ground that there was a significant change in the age level of the injury and disease; and (e) on the ground that it was difficult to recognize the medical care due to the reason that there was a proximate causal relation between the injury and disease; and (e) on the following grounds, the Defendant rendered a decision on the medical care for the reason that it was difficult to recognize the pertinent injury and disease due to the reason that there was a substantial causal relation between the injury and disease.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, 10, 12, and 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The injury and disease of this case occurred or rapidly aggravated due to the instant accident, and there is a proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s official duties. Nevertheless, the instant disposition taken by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination

1 ) 갑 제5 , 6 , 7호증 , 갑 제8호증의 1 , 2 , 3 , 갑 제9호증의 1 내지 4 , 을 제2 내지 5 , 11호증의 각 기재 , 이 법원의 고려대학교안암병원장에 대한 진료기록감정촉탁결과 에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 , 이 사건 사고로 인하여 위 승합차는 전면부와 측면 부 등 차체 외부뿐만 아니라 내부까지 상당히 파손되어 그 수리비가 14 , 945 , 795원이나 소요된 사실 , 원고는 이 사건 사고 발생 다음날인 2014 . 6 . 4 . 07 : 05경 순천의료원 응 급실에 내원하여 이 사건 사고로 목 , 허리 및 좌측 하지 부위의 통증이 발생하였다고 호소하여 2014 . 6 . 5 . 시행한 요추부 MRI 촬영 등을 통해 ' 요추의 염좌 및 긴장 , 경추 의 염좌 및 긴장 , 요추 5번 - 천추 1번의 추간판 장애 ' 진단하에 2014 . 6 . 16 . 까지 입원 하여 물리치료 , 약물치료 등 보존적 치료를 받은 사실 , 그 후 2014 . 6 . 16 . 부터 2014 . 7 . 7 . 까지 우리한방병원에서 입원치료를 받았음에도 여전히 목 , 허리 부위의 통증이 지 속되자 , 원고는 2014 . 7 . 9 . 서울우리병원에서 MRI 촬영 후 이 사건 제1 , 2 상병 진단 을 받고 2014 . 7 . 9 . 좌측 요추 제5번 신경근 차단술 및 좌측 경추 제4 - 7번간 신경공 차단술을 , 2014 . 7 . 11 . 요추 제5번 - 천추 제1번 좌측 신경공 협착증에 대하여 신경성형 술을 시행받는 등 2014 . 7 . 9 . 부터 2014 . 7 . 14 . 까지 서울우리병원에서 입원치료를 받 은 사실 , 한편 원고가 목 부위와 관련하여는 2006 . 2 . 14 . 미평하나의원에서 경추통으 로 진료받은 것 외에 별다른 진료내역이 확인되지 아니하는 사실 , 그러나 원고가 허리 부위와 관련하여는 2003 . 경 광주보훈병원에서 허리디스크 수술을 받은 후 2004 . 8 . 6 . 부터 2006 . 2 . 18 . 까지 새한신경외과의원에서 요추간판의 외상성 파열로 , 2004 . 10 . 8 . 황인용신경과의원에서 신경뿌리병증을 동반한 요추 및 기타 추간판장애로 각 진료를 받았고 , 또 2010 . 12 . 1 . 광주기독의원에서 요추부 아래허리통증으로 , 2011 . 5 . 7 . 부터 2011 . 5 . 12 . 까지 학교법인 동신의원 , 동신대학교부속순천한방병원 등에서 요천추부 아 래허리통증으로 , 2011 . 3 . 19 . 부터 2011 . 6 . 17 . 까지 광주기독의원 , 으뜸한의원에서 기 타 및 상세불명의 허리뼈 및 골반 부분의 염좌 및 긴장으로 , 2011 . 3 . 21 . 광주기독의 원에서 요추부 좌골신경통을 동반한 요통으로 , 2011 . 4 . 11 . 부터 2011 . 5 . 13 . 까지 남부 의원에서 흉요추부 좌골신경통을 동반한 요통으로 각 진료를 받다가 2011 . 7 . 15 . 서울 우리병원에서 요추부 MRI 촬영을 통하여 요추 제4번 ~ 5번간 재발성 추간판 탈출증 진 단을 받고 2011 . 7 . 18 . 추간판 절제술 등 수술적 치료를 받은 후 그 무렵부터 2012 . 2 . 29 . 까지 순천하나병원 , 동신대학교부속순천한방병원 , 학교법인 동신의원 , 새한신경외 과의원 , 원광대학교순천한방병원 등에서 신경뿌리병증을 동반한 요추 및 기타 추간판장 애로 , 2013 . 9 . 5 . 으뜸한의원에서 요추부 아래허리통증으로 각 진료를 받은 사실을 인 정할 수 있다 .

2) As to the first injury and disease of this case

In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the first injury or disease of this case was caused by the accident of this case or that the existing disease was rapidly aggravated at a natural speed above the level of progress, and therefore, the first injury or disease of this case constitutes an injury or disease in proximate causal relation with official duties, if it appears that the first injury or disease of this case was caused by the accident of this case, or that the first injury or disease of this case was caused rapidly higher than the natural speed.

A) In addition to the Plaintiff’s medical treatment provided once more than eight (8) years prior to the date of the instant accident, the Plaintiff did not have been given medical treatment due to the observation of the symptoms over the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the first injury and disease of this case prior to the instant accident.

B) From the date of occurrence of the instant accident, the Plaintiff constantly complained of the instant accident’s pain, and received medical treatment from the Hacheon Medical Center, Korea’s oriental medical hospital, and Seoul Hospital, and as a result, the Plaintiff conducted MRI photographing shooting on July 9, 2014, observed satisfing up side signboards on the satisfing side. In particular, as between the instant accident No. 6 - 7, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the first injury and disease of this case.

C) In full view of the circumstances surrounding the instant accident, the degree of damage, and the Defendant’s injury caused by the instant accident, as seen earlier, approved the Plaintiff’s medical care period of 5 days from June 4, 2014 to July 28, 2014. In view of the Plaintiff’s symptoms caused by the instant accident, and the Plaintiff’s climatic observation that was observed by radiation pictures, etc., it is highly likely that the Plaintiff suffered from the Plaintiff’s climatic and personal damage due to the instant climatic movement at the time of the instant accident, and the Plaintiff’s climatic was likely to have suffered from the Plaintiff’s climatic and personal injury, leading to the level of the Plaintiff’s climatic at the time of the instant accident that led to the Plaintiff’s occurrence or aggravation of the instant climatic disease.

D) In view of the time interval between the instant accident and the Plaintiff’s compacting point of view, it is difficult to view that the instant accident and the Plaintiff’s compacting point of view was published by other causes likely to cause injury and disease to the first injury and disease in addition to the instant accident.

E) In light of the circumstances in paragraphs (a) through (d) above, in cases where a conical change occurs, a conical signboard can escape from one external wound, and where the departure of a conical signboard has already existed, an external shock may lead to the occurrence of the escape from the conical signboard, or the aggravation of the sking. In light of the circumstances in paragraphs (a) through (d) above, the Plaintiff seems to have operated the external shock caused by the instant accident, and thus, the Plaintiff appears to have suffered the escape from the conical signboard No. 6 - No. 7, or the sloping of the conical signboard aggravated above the natural progress speed. Medical record appraisal presents a medical opinion to the same effect.

3) As to the second injury and disease of this case

In light of the above facts and the following circumstances, the injury or disease of this case No. 2 cannot be deemed to have deteriorated due to the dismissal of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Accordingly, the injury or disease of this case No. 2 cannot be deemed to be an injury or disease in proximate causal relation with the official duties.

A) Before the instant accident, the Plaintiff continued to receive medical treatment, such as undergoing an operation on the post signboard escape certificate, on the part of the 2nd soldier’s department of the instant accident, on the part of the 2nd soldier’s department of the instant accident.

B) On July 15, 201, prior to the instant death, there was an opinion of an anti-conceptic disease even on the side of the injury and disease No. 2 in the instant case - No. 5 of the injury and disease No. 2 - on the side of the injury and disease No. 1. In addition, it is highly likely that the anti-conceptic disease was caused by the external shock, and it is very rare in the case of the external shock, such as the Plaintiff, if there was an anti-conceptic disease due to this sceptic disease, the height of the conceptic disease, the post-concident, the post-concident, and the sceptic gap formation.

C) On July 15, 201, prior to the instant accident, MDRI’s observation of the Plaintiff on July 15, 201, No. 5 in the Round MDR, which had been taken by the Plaintiff, had been observed by the Gyeong-do’s central protruding view, but did not seem to have any pressure on the surrounding heli structure. Following the instant accident, No. 5 in the MaDRI’s historical history No. 5 in the Round, which was taken by the Plaintiff on June 5, 201 and July 9, 2014, the central protruding view of the Gyeong-do’s central protruding view was also observed, but there was no pressure on the surrounding chronic structure. In particular, the medical record appraisal before and after the instant accident did not seem to have any meaningful opinion on aggravation to the Plaintiff when comparing the above images of the instant accident.

4) Ultimately, the part on the injury and disease of the instant case No. 1 among the instant disposition is unlawful, and the part on the injury and disease of the instant case No. 2 is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are not reasonable. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jin-hoon