Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 16.2.1982/4126:81 AI generated

Insurance court allows occupational disease claim for carpal tunnel syndrome linked to repetitive work motions.

Case Number VakO 16.2.1982/4126:81
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The insurance court allowed the claim for occupational disease compensation regarding the insured's right carpal tunnel syndrome. The insured, a meat cutter since 1968, developed symptoms in 1980 which the insurer initially denied. The court ruled that the condition resulted from repetitive physical movements at work and was therefore compensable as an occupational disease.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Insurance Act; Occupational Disease Act: Repetitive physical motions during employment can constitute a cause for occupational disease compensation even if symptoms manifest years later.

Keywords

AI generated
occupational disease carpal tunnel syndrome repetitive motion injury insurance liability work-related compensation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Insurance Act
Occupational Disease Act
AI generated
insurance_1980_5775-1979
Insurance court dismissed claim for occupational disease compensation due to lack of causal link between work and injury.
insurance_1982_1290-1981
Worker's compensation denied for shoulder inflammation caused by repetitive hammering without medical causation link.
insurance_1979_11390-1978
Insurance court dismissed claim for work injury compensation due to lack of causal link between work and illness.
insurance_1968_5385-1981
Insurance court dismissed claim for work-related shoulder injury compensation due to lack of direct causal link between repetitive welding and specific tendonitis.
insurance_1980_10938-1979
Insurance court dismissed claim for work-related injury compensation due to lack of direct causal link between repetitive lifting and shoulder inflammation.

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 1968 lihanleikkajana olleen työntekijän oikea käsi oli kesäkuussa 1980 kipeytynyt ja vaiva oli määritelty oikean olkaluun ulomman sivunastan tulehdukseksi. Vakuutusyhtiö suoritti korvausta tästä sairaudestas. Lisäksi oli todettu oikean värttinähermon pinneoireyhtymään eli n.s. Frosen sydroomaan viittaavia oireita oikeassa kyynärpääseudussa. VAKO epäsi korvauksen oikean värttinähermon pinneoireyhtymästä. IV -jaosto KKO 14.12.1983: Oikean värttinähermon pinneoireyhtymä oli myös ilmeisesti aiheutunut hänen lihanleikkaajan työssään oikean kyynärvarren toistuvaan kiertoliikkeeseen liittyvästä fysikaalisesta tekijästä ja korvattava ammattitautina. (Lääkintöhallitus: Kettunen Valtimo)