logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.06.20 2018누77984
진료계획불승인처분취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 3, 2015, the deceased A (EE; hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) entered a stock company B and was in charge of loading and unloading goods from freezing vehicles. On August 23, 2016, while he/she was performing freezing and unloading work at freezing vehicles, he/she received medical care from the Defendant on March 13, 2017 after obtaining medical care approval for the above sick and wounded, from August 23, 2016 to May 18, 2018.

(338 days of hospitalization, 296 days of hospitalization). (b)

The Deceased submitted a medical treatment plan to the Defendant on January 25, 2018 that “the instant injury and disease requires brain pressure and respiratory treatment by hospitalizing in a middle patient room from January 18, 2018 to April 5, 2018, but the Defendant on March 28, 2018 on the ground that “the instant injury and disease constitutes a new cerebrovassis unrelated to the previous approval branch” was non-approval of the said medical treatment plan. However, the Defendant submitted a medical treatment plan to the Deceased on March 28, 2018 on the ground that “the instant injury and disease constitutes a new cerebrovassis unrelated to the previous approval branch.”

(c) The Deceased died on February 23, 2019, during the instant lawsuit, and only the Plaintiff, a mother, was alive, and the Plaintiff took over the instant lawsuit. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and the evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5 (including the serial number, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as indicated in the evidence No. 1, No. 1, and the whole pleadings.

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. The legality of the instant disposition

A. It is reasonable to view the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant injury was caused by the injury or disease caused by the weather approval, in light of the time interval between the injury or disease in the instant case and the weather approval, the identity of the blood department, the deceased’s ability to spawn, etc.

Nevertheless, this case's medical examination and treatment plan submitted by the deceased was not approved on the ground that the injury or disease in this case was a new disease unrelated to the previous medical examination and treatment branch.

arrow