Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Hämeen LO 7.11.1986 1192/I AI generated

Home municipality denied hospital costs reimbursement due to patient's non-residence during need period.

Case Number Hämeen LO 7.11.1986 1192/I
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court dismissed the patient's claim for reimbursement of hospital asthma treatment costs from their home municipality. Although the patient resides in Tampere, the court found they were not living there when the need for social assistance arose in Hämeenlinna. Consequently, the home municipality was not obligated to cover the expenses under the Social Services Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Sosiaalihuoltolaki 13 § 1 mom 2 kohta; 30 §; 51 §: The home municipality is not liable for social assistance-related hospital costs if the individual was not residing in that municipality at the time the need for assistance arose.

Keywords

AI generated
social assistance liability residence requirement hospital cost reimbursement home municipality duty asthma treatment expenses

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Sosiaalihuoltolaki 13 § 1 mom 2 kohta
Sosiaalihuoltolaki 30 §
Sosiaalihuoltolaki 51 §
AI generated
insurance_2010_2158-2009
Insurance court rules travel costs reimbursed based on nearest facility, not private sector availability at home.
kho-precedent_2002_21
City dismissed claim for private surgery costs as social planning law governs provider relations, not patient claims.
kho-precedent_2011_32
Court held involuntary psychiatric hospitalization does not count as residence for benefits purposes, so home municipality must reimburse.
kho-precedent_2004_58
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses claim for unpaid mental health patient care costs due to lack of legal basis.
admin_2013_vaasa__463
Court dismisses appeal as continued involuntary treatment violated international human rights obligations due to lack of independent external review.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Onko potilaan kotikunta velvollinen toimeentulotukena korvaamaan sairaalalle hoitomaksut, joita potilas ei ole kyennyt maksamaan?

Potilaan kotikunta on ollut Tampere ja hän on joutunut astmakohtauksen vuoksi sairaalaan Hämeenlinnassa.

Hakemus on hylätty, koska potilas mahdollisen toimeentulotuen tarpeeseen joutuessaan ei ole oleskellut Tampereella.

SosiaalihuoltoL 13 § 1 mom 2 kohta

SosiaalihuoltoL 30 §

SosiaalihuoltoL 51 §