Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Mikkelin LO 5.2.1992 56 AI generated

County court dismissed appeal against social board's refusal of treatment fee commitment for drug rehab.

Case Number Mikkelin LO 5.2.1992 56
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The county court rejected the applicant's appeal against the social board's decision to deny a commitment to pay for treatment at a private clinic. The social board refused the fee commitment because the municipality fulfilled its statutory duty to organize drug rehabilitation services itself. The court upheld this decision, ruling that the municipality's own provision of care exempted it from providing a financial commitment for privately selected treatment.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

PäihdehuoltoL 3 §; PäihdehuoltoL 7 §: When a municipality fulfills its statutory obligation to organize drug rehabilitation services, it is not required to issue a commitment to pay for treatment at a privately selected facility.

Keywords

AI generated
drug rehabilitation services municipal statutory duty treatment fee commitment private clinic selection social board decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
PäihdehuoltoL 3 §
PäihdehuoltoL 7 §
AI generated
admin_1992_uusimaa-county__1802
Municipality not liable for drug rehab costs if no budget funds exist in implementation plan.
admin_1998_hame-county__430
Municipality must pay for substance abuse care facility even without budget allocation if treatment suitability is proven.
admin_2002_hameenlinna__249
Administrative court dismisses claim against municipality for unequal home care support eligibility based on veteran status.
admin_1996_turku-and-pori-county__541
Administrative court dismisses claim that health care facility must fund weekend home trips for disabled patient.
insurance_2010_2158-2009
Insurance court rules travel costs reimbursed based on nearest facility, not private sector availability at home.

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

Kunta oli järjestänyt päihdehuollon kuntoutushoidon oman kuntainliittonsa

kuntoutumiskeskuksessa. Asiakkaan pyydettyä

maksusitoumusta valitsemaansa yksityiseen kuntoutusklinikkaan

sosiaalilautakunta hylkäsi hakemuksen hoitomaksun osalta ja

päätti ratkaista toimeentulotuen myöntämisen asiakasmaksuun

erikseen kun on saatu selvitys perheen taloudellisesta tilanteesta.

Lääninoikeus hylkäsi maksusitoumuksen antamista hoitomaksuun

koskevan valituksen sillä perusteella, että kunta on huolehtinut

päihdehuollon järjestämisvelvollisuudestaan eikä ole

velvollinen antamaan maksusitoumusta asiakkaan valitsemaan

hoitoon.

PäihdehuoltoL 3 §

PäihdehuoltoL 7 §