Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 2.11.1982/9489:81 AI generated

Insurance court denied claim for back pain compensation when fracture was proven but pain was not directly linked.

Case Number VakO 2.11.1982/9489:81
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 claimant's request for compensation regarding persistent lower back pain following a work-related fracture. Although the fracture was confirmed, the court found no direct causal link between the injury and the ongoing pain symptoms. Consequently, the claim was rejected because the pain could not be established as a direct consequence of the accident.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Insurance Act; Workmen's Compensation Act: Compensation for persistent pain following a work injury is only granted if the pain is directly proven to be a consequence of the accident, not merely a separate condition.

Keywords

AI generated
work injury compensation causal link requirement persistent pain assessment insurance liability medical causation standard

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Insurance Act
Workmen's Compensation Act

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO 30.12.1983:30
AI generated
kko-other_2008_767
Supreme Court dismisses claim for compensation when pain symptoms lack direct causal link to original accident.
kko-other_2012_478
Supreme Court dismisses work injury claim where ankle pain stems from prior injury, not the accident.
kko-other_2011_8
Supreme Court dismissed claim for delay damages as no causal link between trial delay and plaintiff's health condition was proven.
kko-other_2012_2460
Supreme Court dismissed claim for compensation where pain in left upper limb was not causally linked to the 2007 accident.
insurance_2012_969-2012
Insurance court denied accident pension for depression due to lack of causal link to the 2000 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

Työntekijä oli työpaikalla liukastunut portaissa ja kaatunut selälleen seurauksin, että hän oli saanut I ja II lannenikamien puristusmurtumat. Hoitojen jälkeen lanneselän kiputila oli jatkunut. VAKO epäsi korvauksen lannerangan nikamavälilevyn esiinluiskahduksista iskiasoireineen. II-jaosto KKO 30.12.1983: Lannerangan nikamavälilevyn esiinluiskahdusta ei ollut todettu. Risti-lanneselän kiputilaa sitävastoin oli pidettävä tapaturman seurauksena. (Lääkintöhallitus: Karaharju)