1. On August 31, 2018, the Defendant’s measure of non-approval for the medical care rendered to the Plaintiff, “assumptive reconsive reconstition of pre-constigious watchor.”

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 20, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on June 20, 2018, alleging that the previous disease was aggravated due to the occurrence of each accident on August 14, 2017 and August 20, 2017 while serving as a taxi driver at B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant workplace”).

B. On August 31, 2018, the Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff, “the Plaintiff performed the duty of installing and removing signboards for five years from March 2007 to February 2012; (b) performed the duty of taxi driving from March 2012 to October 2017; (c) performed the duty of taxi driving; (d) performed the duty of operating a taxi for about ten hours with a shoulder, and (e) performed the duty of operating a taxi for about ten hours at any time; (c) performed a turn-on operation with a driver, and (d) performed the duty of installing and removing signboards, the intensity was lower than that of causing damage accumulated in the shoulder; (d) performed the duty of installing and removing the signboards, and (e) performed the duty of removing the signboards, and (e) performed the duty of treating the taxi for not more than five years after the medical treatment of the instant case on the grounds that there was no proximate causal causal relation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s disease after January 1, 2008.”

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition for review with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee dismissed it on January 4, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On August 14, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff exceeded wheel chairss.