Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
KKO 439/2001 KI-generiert

Work injury claim dismissed because pre-existing pain was not a direct cause of the new muscle tear.

Geschäftsnummer KKO 439/2001
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Finnland (FI)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Supreme Court of Finland dismissed the claimant's request for work injury compensation following a tear in the biceps brachii. The claimant argued that a pre-existing, severe pain in the elbow was the direct cause of the injury sustained during work. The court ruled that the pre-existing condition was merely a contributing factor rather than the direct cause of the new injury.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Accident Act; Work Injury Act: A pre-existing medical condition constitutes a direct cause of a work injury only if the injury would not have occurred without that condition, not merely if it aggravated the symptoms.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
work injury compensation direct cause requirement pre-existing condition biceps brachii tear Accident Act 1982 work injury liability causation analysis medizinische Überprüfung

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Accident Act 1982
Work Injury Act 1982
KI-generiert
kko-other_2000_2583
Supreme Court allows compensation for work-related muscle strain treated as occupational disease under Finnish Act on Work-Related Diseases.
kko-other_2006_2143
Supreme Court dismissed claim for work accident compensation for tendon rupture due to lack of causation between work and injury.
insurance_1979_2790-1978
Insurance court dismissed work injury claim for shoulder tear caused by lifting heavy package.
kko-other_1997_4250
Supreme Court held that a gap between the third and fourth lumbar vertebrae is not a compensable accident consequence under private accident insurance.
kko-other_2002_772
Work injury claim rejected because pain felt during lifting was not a direct result of the specific injury.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

A oli tuntenut painavaa elementtiä nostaessaan vasemman käden kyynärpään sisäpuolella pistävää kipua. Hänellä oli sittemmin todettu vasemman hauislihaksen etäisemmän pään repeämä. Kysymys oikeudesta tapaturmavakuutuslain mukaiseen korvaukseen.