2019Gudan69523 Disposition of revocation of the payment of disability benefits

*

*

March 17, 2021

April 21, 2021

1. The Defendant’s disposition to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on June 25, 2019 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 20, 2018, the Plaintiff (1940.*. *.) diagnosed a person who has the ability to work in the mining center, and applied for the payment of disability benefits to the Defendant around April 3, 2018, after receiving a diagnosis of the two sides of the dialogic chronological chronological chronology, and noise risk (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

B. On June 25, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision on the disability benefit site payment (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff is an opinion that the causal relationship with the office is not recognized as a result of the deliberation by the Seoul Regional Headquarters Integrated Review Committee.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 through 4, 6 through 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff

The Plaintiff’s infertility corresponds to a noise-related scarcity caused by noise generated in the course of the landing of a mine site, or a scarcity’s damage caused by noise led to the progress of scarcity at a natural progress speed above the current state, and there is a proximate causal relation between the work of the upper branch of this case. Accordingly, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.

2) Defendant

Of the Plaintiff’s period of working in the mining center, the period of working in the landing room is merely three months from September 1, 1976 to November 1, 1976, and thus, did not meet the enforcement decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act that should be exposed to the noise of 85 cc or more for at least three consecutive years.

In addition, considering the fact that the time when the Plaintiff was diagnosed as the injury and disease of this case was 7 years old since the lapse of about 27 years after leaving the noise business place, and that the elderly who was 65 years old generally accounts for 75% of the total loss of hearing ability when the elderly who was mixed with the elderly kiscing and the elderly kiscing, it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation between the occupational branch of this case and the occupational branch of this case due to the progress of natural aging.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff’s work experience in the noise workplace

A) The Plaintiff’s mining center’s work force confirmed by objective data is equivalent to the sum of five years and four months as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

B) According to the Defendant’s noise risk management standard (2017.8.8.), the noise measurement value by process for the five-year period of the mining facility in operation (at least 20 regular workers) is one of the first amamamam, 98.6dB, 108.6dB, 85.2dB, and loaded 89.5dB.

다) 원고는 ●●●●개발 주식회사 ○○○광업소를 퇴직한 이후 소음사업장에서 근무한 이력은 없다.

(ii) medical opinions

A) Opinions of the doctor’s view (Cryburiwon, 20 February 20, 2018)

○ Name of injury or disease: each of the following pathal pathal panes, noise-related pans;

○ As a result of the three-time inspection of the net impact, the highest hearing power shall be 69dB to the right and 64dB to the left.

Then, it is argued that there was no significant inconvenience in the Cheong-domination before the work was performed in the noise environment for about 30 years, and that there was a Cheong-domination loss in the net Cheong-domination test focusing on 400Hz.

나) 특별진찰의 소견(■■■■병원, 2018. 11. 16.)

○ Results of inspection

- Net History Inspection (6-minute average value): once for the first 59 minutes, 56 equivalent hours, 2. 58 equivalent hours, 61dB, 3rd 55dB, 52dB (Account).

- Language and hearing ability testing (in the face of notes): 75% (friendly), 65% (in the face of notes)

- Visualop test: both types A

- ABR test: 60dB(DB) and 50dB(Coordinate).

○ Injury or disease name: A detailed pathal chronronism (the cause of the injury or disease shall be unknown)

○ There is no obvious difference between the Cheongdo-do-to-do-to-do-to-do-to-do-to-do-to-do-to-face-to-face-to-face

○ It is not suspected that the unique conditions of the anti-biological inspection are not observed, and that there is no suspicion of the post-malopic disease in the ABR test.It is considered that there was an impact in consideration of the past vocational noise output in which the anti-malopic disorder of both sides of the popic chronological chronronological chronronronological chronologicality test had taken into account the average chronology by Korean age.

I would like to think about.

C) The result of the integrated review of the Defendant Seoul Regional Headquarters

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

D) The result of the court’s entrustment of medical record appraisal to the head of △ University Hospital in △△ University

The cause of the ○○ Cheongsung unrecognizable by a congenital cause exists, and there are various causes such as typhical typhism, pulmonary typhism, chronology, toxical typhism, trauma (noises, etc.), chronological typhism, typhical typhism, typhical typhism, chronological typhism, immunity, typhism, typhism, etc.If the ○○ Da-Scal typhism mixed with the vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical vesical ves.

It is difficult to determine whether there is a happy or rapid progress of the hearing or not.According to the National Health Nutrition Survey Data, a man aged 77 years old is considered to be a serious situation compared to the general public.It is difficult to regard the plaintiff's Cheongsung as a sole situation of the noise in light of the elderly, and it seems that there is a noise in light of the elderly, but the possibility of mixing the noise in light of the medical history is diverse. ○○ Elderly Cheongsung includes all the concept of the difficulty caused by noise, and it is not possible to exclude the impact of the noise even if the noise in light of the typical amount of the elderly Cheongsung Cheong Flaf. Accordingly, it is impossible to clearly distinguish the plaintiff's Cheongsung from the main causes of the noise in light of the elderly Cheongsung Flaf type.It is difficult to determine whether the noise in light of the previous noise output of the plaintiff and the current state of Cheong Plaf, but there is no possibility of complete analysis of the noise in light of the possibility of the plaintiff's Cheong Flaf's noise in an environment.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 2 through 10, Eul evidence 3 and 4, the result of the request for the examination of medical records to the director of the hospital of Seogsan University, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) The term "occupational accident" under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to a disease, etc. caused by the worker's occupational injury while performing his/her duties, which must have a proximate causal relation between the worker's occupational disease and the disease. In this case, the causal relation between the worker's occupational and the disease must be proved by the claimant. However, the causal relation does not necessarily have to be proved by medical or natural science, and it is presumed that there is a substantial excessive relation between the worker's occupational and the disease. Considering all circumstances, the causal relation is included when the basic disease or the existing disease which can be ordinarily assigned to ordinary work has been rapidly aggravated at a speed above the natural progress due to the worker's duty, and the existence of a causal relation with the occupational and the disease should be determined based on the worker's health and physical condition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du4912, Apr. 12, 207).

2) In full view of the following circumstances as to this case’s health team, the above facts of recognition, and the evidence as mentioned above, as well as the statement in Eul evidence No. 9, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s injury to the instant case’s disease constitutes a noise risk resulting from noise exposed to a mining station for a considerable period of time, or caused the current state of danger due to the aggravation of the elderly’s distress beyond the naturally occurring speed due to the noise risk, and thus, there is a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work and the injury of the instant case’s disease. Accordingly, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

① According to Article 34(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2950, Jul. 2, 2019); Article 34(3) [Attachment 3] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2950, Jul. 2, 2019) and subparagraph 7.(d) of the “Specific Criteria for Recognition of Occupational Diseases”, in order to recognize noise risk diseases, the Plaintiff must continuously be exposed to not less than 85 noise for not less than three years. The Plaintiff has continuously been engaged in the mining establishment business for not less than five years, and the Plaintiff has continuously been exposed to noise for not less than three months, for three months, for three months, for two months, for three months, for which the Plaintiff has been engaged in the business, but the degree of noise exposure by major duties of the mining establishment does not have a maximum of 98.6dB, 108.6dB, 895.5dB.

② 위 [별표 3]의 제7호 ㈗목에서 규정한 기준에 의하면, 소음성 난청을 업무상 질병으로 인정하기 위해서는 한 귀의 청력손실이 40dB 이상이어야 한다. 원고의 2018년경의 청력손실은 ●●이비인후과의원에서의 검사 결과에 의하면 우측 69㏈, 좌측 64㏈이고, ■■■■병원에서의 검사 결과에 의하면 우측 55㏈, 좌측 52㏈인바, 이는 위 기준에서 정한 청력손실 수치를 넘어서는 것이다.

③ The Plaintiff does not have any obvious side of sacrine or heavy disease, and there is no history of suffering from other sacratic diseases related to the sacrife of sacrife.

④ ■■■■병원 특별진찰의는 ‘원고의 기도청력역치와 골도청력역치 사이에 뚜렷한 차이가 없고 고음역의 청력저하가 더 심하다'고 판단하면서 '원고의 난청은 과거 직업적 소음노출력의 영향이 있는 것으로 볼 수 있다'는 취지의 소견을 제시하였고, 피고의 서울지역본부 통합심사회의에서 일부 심사위원은 '원고가 고령이긴 하지만 장기간 소음에 노출된 기왕력을 감안한다면 양측 난청은 업무와의 인과관계가 있을 가능성이 높다고 생각된다'는 취지의 소견을 제시하였으며, 이 법원의 진료기록감정의는 '원고의 과거 소음노출력과 현재의 청력 상태를 종합하여 보면 소음으로 인해서 난청이 발생했을 가능성을 완전히 배제할 수 없다'는 취지의 소견을 제시하였다.

⑤ From around 1991 to around 2018, the Plaintiff received diagnosis of the instant injury and disease from around 27 years after withdrawal from the final noise business place. Since the Plaintiff’s age at the time reached 77 years of age, it is difficult to deny that the progress of natural aging had influenced the Plaintiff’s psyptive loss.

However, in the case of noise in distress, there mainly occur the lucence loss in the high-speed band, and noise.

It is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s vision was entirely caused by a senior citizens’ distress and that there was no contribution to the exposure of noise, solely on the circumstance that the time of the Plaintiff’s vision was somewhat late, considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s vision was somewhat late due to the Plaintiff’s subjective state of the patient, even though it did not cause a great inconvenience in daily life at this stage, the symptoms were serious, and that the Plaintiff’s vision was discovered late due to the patient’s symptoms, and that there was no contribution to the Plaintiff’s exposure to noise.

6. The medical record appraisal of this court presented to the effect that the plaintiff's losses of hearing power are more serious than that of the general people in the same age (27dB), and that the elderly people's losses of hearing power are deemed to have the same elements of hearing ability, but the noise-related hearing elements are likely to be mixed with the medical records," and that the National Health Nutrition Survey (2010-2012) conducted by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010-2012) that the average losses of hearing power of the general public over 70 years of age who were not exposed to noise are 25.2dB, and if compared to this, the plaintiff

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that there is no significant difference between 5dB, and 57.3dB, according to the plaintiff's special diagnosis opinion, the degree of honest loss (e.g., 5dB, 52dB) by those aged 70 years or older who have shown the symptoms of the king, due to the fact that the plaintiff had already been exposed to the elderly's health nutrition survey. However, the above national health nutrition survey did not have a significant difference between 5dB, and 52dB from the plaintiff's special diagnosis opinion. However, it is difficult to find that the above national health nutrition survey was conducted for more than 3 months at a place with a large noise such as machinery or power generation, 5 hours or more in a week from the outside of the occupation, 3 days or more from the general public's inquiry as to whether there was a large noise such as 5 hours or more from the general public, and it is difficult to find the plaintiff's subjective noise output as a result of a survey of 'explosion' and 7 years of noise.

7) In general, if a mixture of 65 years of age is made between 5 years of age and 65% of the total loss of hearing ability, the report cannot be applied uniformly to all persons, taking into account the following: (a) there is a difference in the timing and degree of aging; (b) the noise flow period; (c) the intensity of exposed noise; and (d) the degree of assumption of noise; and (e) there is a known fact that the loss of hearing ability due to aging may occur rapidly higher than natural progress due to the influence of the noise state office.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.