Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Mikkelin LO 26.8.1992 556 AI generated

Dental bridge costs rejected as income support expenses due to lack of medical necessity for basic health.

Case Number Mikkelin LO 26.8.1992 556
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The applicant sought income support for a dental bridge to address severe pain and inability to use a partial prosthesis due to an allergic reaction and vomiting reflex. The County Administrative Court rejected the claim, finding the proposed treatment exceeded basic health needs. Consequently, the court ruled that the costs were not eligible expenses under the social assistance act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Sosiaalihuoltolaki 30 §; Toimeentulotuen yleisistä perusteista 3 §: Costs for dental bridge treatment are not eligible income support expenses unless strictly necessary for basic health maintenance.

Keywords

AI generated
income support eligibility dental bridge costs allergic reaction basic health needs social assistance act medical necessity County Administrative Court

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Sosiaalihuoltolaki 30 §
Toimeentulotuen yleisistä perusteista 3 §
VNp toimeentulotuen yleisistä perusteista 3 §
AI generated
admin_1992_central-finland-county__214
Dental prosthetics replacement due to epilepsy medication side effects denied as disability aid under Finnish law.
admin_1997_uusimaa-county__1351
Court dismisses disability allowance claim for private medical costs deemed non-essential by expert opinion.
admin_1986_turku-and-pori-county__147
County association not liable for private dentist costs when public service capacity was insufficient for specific age group.
admin_1983_turku-and-pori-county__1086
Taxpayer allowed to deduct solarium lamp cost for psoriasis treatment from income tax.
admin_1986_hame-county__1192
Home municipality denied hospital costs reimbursement due to patient's non-residence during need period.

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

Toimeentulotukeen oikeuttavat terveydenhuoltomenot.

Hakijan esittämistä ja sosiaalilautakunnan hankkimista lääkärinlausunnoista

ilmeni, ettei henkilö voinut allergian

vuoksi käyttää metallirunkoista hammasproteesia ja hänelle

teetetyn akryylirunkoisen osaproteesin käyttö oli lähes mahdotonta

voimakkaan oksennusrefleksin vuoksi. Hampaiston epätyydyttävän

tilan vuoksi potilaalla oli jatkuvaa päänsärkyä.

Lääkärinlausuntojen mukaan suositeltavin hoitomuoto potilaalle

oli kiinteä silta, jonka kustannusarvio olisi ollut

26 500 - 31 500 markkaa.

Sosiaalilautakunta oli hylännyt hakemuksen.

Lääninoikeus katsoi, etteivät ehdotetun hammashoidon kulut

ole toimeentulotukeen oikeuttavia terveydenhuoltomenoja.

SosiaalihuoltoL 30 §

VNp toimeentulotuen yleisistä perusteista 3 §