1. On August 24, 2018, the Defendant’s disposition of additional medical care and non-approval of additional injury or disease rendered to the Plaintiff is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 18, 200, the Plaintiff received medical care from the Defendant from May 18, 200 to December 31, 2005 of the disability grade No. 7 Subparagraph 5 of the disability grade (the chest long-term function of the chest long-term is hindered, and the Plaintiff did not engage in an easy service) with the approval from the Defendant for an occupational accident.

B. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-medical care benefits and additional injury and injury-disease with the Defendant on July 20, 2018 on the ground that the Plaintiff, which was diagnosed on January 20, 2018 (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”) occurred due to the side effects of “absurin” used for the treatment of the approved injury and disease.

C. On August 24, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the Plaintiff’s additional medical care and additional medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) according to the result of the deliberation by the Defendant advisory society that “it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the occurrence of the instant injury or disease” against the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed a petition for review against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on December 20, 2018, and again filed a petition for reexamination on March 19, 2019, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed the petition on May 31, 2019.

【Ground for recognition】 The non-contentious facts, entries in Gap evidence 3, 10, 11, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant injury and disease occurred due to the side effects of “overfinite”, which have been used in the long term for the treatment of the existing injury and disease.

Even if the blood type in the double wall was caused by external wounds, it should be deemed that the instant injury occurred due to the overlapped side effects of the “overfinite”.

Therefore, the existing recognition branch of this case should have a proximate causal relation, but it is based on the defendant's different premise.