Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 8.5.1979/3069:78 AI generated

Insurance court dismissed claim for natural sensitivity and hay fever asthma compensation due to prior partial payment.

Case Number VakO 8.5.1979/3069:78
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Insurance Court dismissed the applicant's claim for additional compensation regarding natural sensitivity and hay fever-induced asthma. The applicant had previously received partial benefits for hay fever symptoms but contested coverage for natural sensitivity and the full extent of hay fever-related asthma. The court ruled that since the applicant had already been compensated for hay fever symptoms, the claim for further benefits on these specific grounds was rejected.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Insurance Act s. 10; Insurance Act s. 11: Where an insured has already received compensation for specific symptoms arising from a condition, a subsequent claim for additional benefits for the same condition or related symptoms is generally inadmissible unless new, distinct medical evidence is presented.

Keywords

AI generated
insurance compensation natural sensitivity hay fever asthma partial payment benefit exclusion

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Insurance Act s. 10
Insurance Act s. 11
AI generated
insurance_1983_10352-1981
Insurance court dismissed claim for occupational disease compensation due to lack of medical causation evidence.
insurance_1979_7868-1978
Occupational disease claim dismissed; symptoms from 1963 not linked to 1976 solvent exposure.
insurance_1982_8553-1981
Work injury claim denied by employer due to disputed causation between work duties and shoulder inflammation.
insurance_2007_5848-2006
Finnish Insurance Court allows occupational asthma compensation despite negative exposure tests due to high probability of causation.
insurance_1979_8793-1978
Insurance court dismissed claim for occupational disease compensation due to lack of causal link between work and injury.

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

Vuodesta 1962 Metsäliiton Teollisuus Oy:n Äänekosken tehtailla työskennellyt kirvesmies oli 1976 sairastunut keuhkoastmaan. Luontaisen liikaherkkyyden lisäksi hänellä oli todettu rehuhiivalle herkistymisestä johtuvia oireita. Vakuutusyhtiö oli suorittanut korvausta rehuhiivalle herkistymisestä astmaoireineen, mutta ei luontaisesta liikaherkkyydestä eikä rehuhiivan aiheuttamasta astmasta. VAKO epäsi korvauksen luontaisesta liikaherkkyydestä ja rehuhiivan aiheuttamasta astmasta. IV -jaosto KKO 15.4.1983 katsoi, että keuhkoastma oli ilmeisesti aiheutunut rehuhiiva-altistuksesta siltäkin osin kuin se oli aiheutunut luontaisesta liikaherkkyydestä ja riippumatta työolosuhteista. (Lääkintöhallitus: Poppius-Nordman)