2016 oldest 65278 Disposition of revocation of the payment of disability benefits

A

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

2017, 13 October 200

October 20, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's disposition to pay disability benefits to the plaintiff on December 31, 2015 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 19, 1980 to February 28, 1986, the Plaintiff (B) served as the first cancer manipulation worker in the C Company from October 19 to February 28, 1986.

B. The Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant by asserting that the noise had been continuously exposed to noise while working in the mine as described in the foregoing paragraph (a) and the occurrence of difficulties. However, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on December 31, 2015 on the ground that “the Plaintiff cannot be recognized as having worked for more than 85dB noise places in continuous 85dB for more than three years” (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits”). In response to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff filed a request for review against the Defendant, and the Defendant filed a request for review against the Defendant for more than 85dB noise places in more than 85dB noise, but even if the symptoms of both of the Plaintiff’s oppy are recognized as having worked for more than three years, the Plaintiff’s claim for review was dismissed on April 7, 2016 on the ground that it appears that the Plaintiff’s symptoms are more likely to result from the age increase than the noise (i.e., the elderly., the elderly

The plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, and Eul No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff has been continuously exposed to noise during the work of the company C, and it is clear that the symptoms of the plaintiff's difficulties occurred due to their work. Therefore, the disposition of this case issued on a different premise should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s current state of Cheongwon University Hospital’s loss due to the Plaintiff’s continuous exposure to occupational noise, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. The records of evidence Nos. 6 and 7’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, and 9 are written, and the result of this court’s entrustment of medical records to the head of the Asia University Hospital Hospital.

① The noise noise noise noise in general is known to be no longer worse after leaving a noise-emitting workplace.

On February 28, 1986, the plaintiff (BB) retired from C company, and was subject to the diagnosis of pnenene dysia for the first time in 2009, 72 years old. The time when the plaintiff was diagnosed with pne dysia, when the plaintiff was diagnosed with pne dysia, when 23 years or more have passed since the plaintiff left the place of work of noise exposure.

② According to the results of the inquiry into the Director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, there was no less than 70 years of age from the National Health Nutrition Survey (2010-2012) conducted by the Director General of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but the degree of Cheong power loss is 57.3dB by those aged 70 years of age or older who show the symptoms of the Agency. The degree of Cheong power loss of the Plaintiff is no more than 55dB of all you, but there was no difference from those of those aged 70 years of age or older who

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion disputing it is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-won