logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.11.17 2015누1429
진료계획서불승인처분
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 12, 2010, the Plaintiff suffered from an accident during work at the construction site, and was in an injury, such as “the alley in the right-side bed, the upper right-side bed salt, the climatic salt, the climatic bed, the eromatic salt, and the eromatic erosion,” etc., and submitted a medical treatment plan to the Defendant for the period of the medical treatment to December 31, 201. On December 23, 2011, the Plaintiff was under medical treatment with the approval of the medical treatment for the above sick and wounded, and submitted the medical treatment plan to the Defendant on March 17, 2012 (hereinafter “the instant medical treatment plan”). As such, additional medical treatment and physical treatment of the above sick and wounded need to be provided to the Defendant as “the eromatic bed in the right-side bed” (hereinafter “the instant medical treatment plan”).

B. Accordingly, the Defendant rendered a non-approval disposition on the instant medical treatment plan (hereinafter “instant disposition”) according to the result of the deliberation by the Defendant’s advisory society, which was “a fixed period after treatment” until December 31, 2011, pursuant to the result of the deliberation by the Defendant advisory society.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 13, 16, 21, 23, and 27, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is in a very severe and continuous state of pain caused by the instant injury and disease, it is unlawful that the Defendant deemed that the symptoms have been fixed after the completion of treatment for the instant injury and thus, the Defendant did not approve the instant medical treatment plan. Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked.

B. 1) Medical opinion A) The Plaintiff’s doctor’s medical opinion on December 21, 201, as well as the Plaintiff’s doctor’s medical treatment plan 1: The diagnosis name: the patient’s symptoms of appeal to the right side 2: the right side click, slick, Slick.

It is difficult to take a bridge.

When the pains are severe, it is difficult to sleep itself.

(3) Major inspection: On the tris cans, there is no clear opinion on the bones of the upper right-hand part, mixed fluoral fluoral fluoral fluory, X-ray inspection.

arrow