Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 17.11.1981/191:81 AI generated

Diabetes-induced osteomyelitis from a work injury is compensable as a direct consequence of the accident.

Case Number VakO 17.11.1981/191:81
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Insurance Court ruled that the claimant's osteomyelitis, caused by a work-related puncture wound in a diabetic foot, is compensable. The insurer denied benefits, arguing the diabetes was a pre-existing condition unrelated to the injury. The court held that the infection and subsequent bone inflammation were direct medical consequences of the accident, not the underlying disease.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Vakuutusoikeuslaki 191/1981; 10 §: The development of an infection and subsequent osteomyelitis in a diabetic patient following a work-related wound is considered a direct consequence of the accident and thus compensable.

Keywords

AI generated
diabetes mellitus osteomyelitis work injury infection consequence compensation claim pre-existing condition medical causation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Vakuutusoikeuslaki 191/1981
AI generated
insurance_2003_8350-2002
Insurance court denied compensation for diabetic foot infection caused by minor injury, ruling medical causation required.
insurance_1979_766-1979
Court allows occupational disease compensation for repetitive lifting injuries under Finnish Act on Occupational Diseases.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2022:65
Supreme Court allows occupational disease compensation for asthma caused by mold exposure at workplace.
kko-other_2008_439
Supreme Court dismissed claim for work injury compensation due to lack of causal link between pre-existing conditions and accident.
insurance_1978_5861-1977
Insurance court denied disability benefits for shoulder inflammation caused by repetitive phone button pressing.

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

Työntekijä, joka poti sokeritautia, oli työssä astunut naulaan saaden pistohaavan oikeaan jalkaterään. Haava oli tulehtunut ja siihen oli muodostunut märkäpesäke. Sittemmin oli todettu oikean jalan luissa luuydintulehdus. VAKO epäsi korvauksen sokeritaudista ja luuydintulehduksesta. IV -jaosto KKO 12.10.1983: Jalan luuydintulehdus oli korvattava puoleksi tapaturman seurauksena. (Lääkintöhallitus: Larmi)