beta
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 May 23, 2017, the Plaintiff was an employee affiliated with B, who was killed at a four-meter high level in the construction site of neighborhood living facilities located at the port site (hereinafter “instant accident”). On the instant accident, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the Defendant for the medical care and applied for an additional injury to the Defendant during the medical care while receiving the medical care approval from the Defendant with respect to the “prestigious salones on the left side, the left salone, and the hearts on the left salone (hereinafter “the instant additional injury”).
B. On August 7, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition of non-approval of the injury by an additional disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the basis of the Plaintiff’s opinion of advisory opinion that “it is difficult to recognize the medical causal relationship with the first accident between the additional department of the instant case and the first accident”, on the ground of the following: (a) as a result of the check of simple radiation immediately after the disaster and the check of the interview after two months; (b) the damaged department is highly likely to cause direct damage to the revolving body; and (c) the MIM’s opinion on the revolving of the revolving body is confirmed; and (d) it is difficult to recognize the occurrence of a change in two months after the disaster.”
C. The Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Defendant. On October 25, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for review based on the results of deliberation by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee that “it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the instant accident and the instant additional injury and disease, even if considering that the video materials taken after the lapse of two months after the accident was examined as a result of the relevant data review, given that it is seen that there was a natural transitional change that had been ongoing before the accident.” However, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee dismissed the request for reexamination on March 23, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, A(1) through (3)