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 August 23, 2017, around 09:00, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff was an accident attributable to the steel bar located in B’s place of business (hereinafter “instant accident”); (b) “In the instant accident, the instant accident is a refluent refluor of the shoulder, the right fluor of the original throst, the right shoulder, and the right shoulder collision; and (c) filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant.
B. On January 11, 2018, the Defendant approved the medical care of the Plaintiff on the ground that “the medical records, MRI, and accident situations are considered to be satisfy,” and that “the satisfy satfy satfy satfy satfy satch satch satch satch satch satch satch satch satch satch satch satch satch satch satch satch satch satch satch satch satch, and there is no causal link between disasters and the upper satch satch satch satch satch satch.” The Defendant approved the medical care non-approval (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion stated that the Plaintiff received treatment from November 12, 201 to the Matern Mana, but the Plaintiff did not received treatment in relation thereto after receiving the last medical treatment on October 27, 2014. The Defendant’s disposition of this case, which did not recognize a proximate causal relation between the above branch of this case and the accident of this case, was unlawful as it was found that the degree of shock to the right side at the time of the accident and that the shock to the degree of shock to the right side in the process of going beyond the above, caused the instant injury to the upper part. Even if the disease of this case was the Plaintiff’s existing disease, the disease of this case resulted in a sudden aggravation of the natural progress due to the shock to the shock caused by the accident of this case.
B. Determination 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to "occupational accidents".