Substitute assistance claim rejected because farm costs were not necessary household expenses under the Act.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe court dismissed the claim for substitute assistance benefits for a farmer who had already received daily allowances. The applicant argued for additional costs, but the court found that expenses arising from livestock management were not necessary household expenses under the relevant Act. Consequently, the claim was rejected because the costs did not meet the statutory definition of necessary household expenses.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedAct on Workmen's Compensation for Farmers; Act on Substitute Assistance: Costs arising from livestock management are not considered necessary household expenses for the purpose of substitute assistance benefits.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedFull text
Henkilö, jolle suoritettiin maatalousyrittäjien tapaturmavakuutuslain perusteella päivärahaa, oli anonut sijaisavun korvaamista kyseiseltä ajalta. VAKO: Karjanhoidosta johtuneet lisäkustannukset eivät olleet kodinhoidosta johtuvia välttämättömiä lisäkustannuksia. III -jaosto