Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
I 2018 69 • VG SZ I 2018 69 Generato dall'IA

Appeal Regarding Accident Insurance Benefits Following Tick Bite

Numero d'incarto I 2018 69
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Canton Svitto (CH-SZ)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Archivio Entscheidsuche Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The case concerns an appeal against a decision related to accident insurance benefits following a tick bite. The appellant, having suffered a tick bite, sought insurance coverage, but the lower court denied the claim. The court ultimately upheld the decision, reasoning that the evidence did not sufficiently establish the necessary causal link between the tick bite and the subsequent health condition to warrant the granting of accident insurance benefits.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Appeal Regarding Accident Insurance Benefits Following Tick Bite: The appellant, having suffered a tick bite, sought insurance coverage, but the lower court denied the claim. The court ultimately upheld the decision, reasoning that the evidence did not sufficiently establish the necessary causal link between the tick bite and the subsequent health condition to warrant the granting of accident insurance benefits.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
prestazione dell'assicurazione contro gli infortuni indicazioni sulla salute assicurazione malattia rinuncia alle prestazioni d'assicurazione decisioni in materia medica azione diretta contro l'assicuratore Unfallversicherung (Leistungen; Zeckenbiss) | Unfallversicherung
Generato dall'IA
I 2018 57
Claimant v. Accident Insurer (Tick Bite Causality Dispute)
I 2019 32
Accident Insurance Benefits Causality Appeal
I 2018 42
Appeal Regarding Causality of Accident Insurance Benefits
I 2020 64
Accident Insurance Benefits Causality Appeal
I 2022 60
Accident Insurance Benefits Causation Dispute

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n I 2018 69 |\n |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 12. Oktober 2018 |\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. Bernhard Zumsteg, Richter lic.iur. Gion Tomaschett, Richter |\n \n|\n |\n MLaw Stefan Getzmann, Gerichtsschreiber |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Parteien |\n A.________, \n Beschwerdeführerin, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt Dr.iur. B.________, |\n \n|\n |\n gegen |\n \n|\n |\n C.________ AG, \n Vorinstanz, |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Gegenstand |\n Unfallversicherung (Leistungen; Zeckenstich) |\n \n\n

\n \n

Sachverhalt: