Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 15.9.1981/7647:80 AI generated

Insurance court denied compensation for congenital spinal defect but allowed it for post-fracture hip instability.

Case Number VakO 15.9.1981/7647:80
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed claims for compensation regarding a congenital spinal curvature but allowed damages for hip instability and pain resulting from a prior pelvic fracture. The plaintiff argued that the spinal defect caused ongoing back and leg pain, while the insurer contested liability for the congenital condition. The court distinguished between the two injuries, ruling that the fracture directly caused the hip issues requiring compensation, whereas the spinal defect did not warrant payment.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Insurance Act s. 10; Insurance Act s. 11: Compensation is granted for injuries directly caused by the insured event, excluding pre-existing congenital conditions unless the event aggravated them.

Keywords

AI generated
congenital spinal defect post-fracture hip instability insurance liability causation analysis pre-existing condition exclusion

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Insurance Act s. 10
Insurance Act s. 11
AI generated
insurance_1985_2143-1984
Insurance court allowed partial compensation for knee injury when initial assessment missed internal ligament tear.
admin_1992_turku-and-pori-county__269
Pig farm permit denied to neighbor due to insufficient herd size for health protection.
admin_1989_water-superior__112
Administrative court dismissed permit for lake island bridge due to disproportionate environmental harm.
kho-other_2018_4097
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal; tree felling requires specific permit under Planning and Building Act.
insurance_1979_1632-1979
Insurance court allows disability claim when long-term back pain is proven as a direct consequence of a past traffic accident.

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 oli pudonnut 6 metrin korkeudelta ja saanut vasemmanpuoleisten suoliluun, häpyluun alahaaran ja lonkkanivelmaljakon murtumat. Hänellä oli todettu synnäinen Iristiluunikaman kaarenpuutos eli selkärankahalkio ja hän oli valittanut pahenevaa alaselän, vasemman pakaran ja reiden kipua sekä ajoittaista kipusäteilyä vasempaan alaraajaan. VAKO epäsi korvauksen synnynnäisestä nikamakaaren puutoksesta. IV -jaosto KKO 23.9.1983: Lantionmurtuman jälkitilana oli kehittynyt vasemman suoliluu-ristiluunivelen epävakavuus ja suoliluu-ristiluualueen kivut olivat seurausta lantion murtumasta ja niistä oli suoritettava korvaus. Selkärankahalkio ei oikeuttanut korvaukseen. (Lääkintöhallitus: Huittinen)