I 2025 2 — Occupational Accident Insurance Benefits Denial Affirmation
Decision Summary (Facts, Holding & Outcome)
AI generatedThe appellant challenged a decision regarding a claim for occupational accident insurance benefits, stemming from an injury sustained during work. The court reasoned that for an injury to qualify as an occupational accident, the activity causing the harm must be directly connected to the execution of the employment contract, and the specific risk involved must be characteristic of the employment; here, the court upheld the lower instance's finding that the specific activity leading to the injury did not sufficiently meet the criteria of being a characteristic occupational risk, thus affirming the denial of benefits.
Headnote / Official Regeste
AI generatedFull Text of the Judgment — I 2025 2
\n \n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n I 2025 2 |\n |\n \n\n
\n \n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 10. April 2025 |\n \n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n Dr.iur. Vital Zehnder, Vizepräsident |\n \n|\n |\n Dr.med. Urs Gössi, Richter Dr.med. Pierre Lichtenhahn, Richter |\n \n|\n |\n MLaw Marco Lacher, Gerichtsschreiber |\n \n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n Parteien |\n A.________, \n Beschwerdeführerin, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt B.________, |\n \n|\n |\n gegen |\n \n|\n |\n Suva, Rechtsabteilung, Fluhmattstrasse 1, Postfach, \n 6002 Luzern, \n Vorinstanz, |\n \n\n
\n