Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 12.11.1985/4798:84 AI generated

Insurance court ruled no index adjustment applies when accident compensation decision remains unchanged on appeal.

Case Number VakO 12.11.1985/4798:84
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 request for an index adjustment to a total accident compensation payment. The underlying decision by the accident committee was not altered during the appeal process. Consequently, the court determined that the condition for triggering an index recalculation was not met.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Tapaturmavakuutuslain 19 §; Index adjustment for total accident compensation is mandatory only when the appeal court modifies the original compensation decision, and no adjustment applies if the decision remains unchanged.

Keywords

AI generated
total accident compensation index adjustment mechanism appeal court modification insurance liability regulation compensation recalculation timing

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Tapaturmavakuutuslain 19 §
Tapaturmavakuutuslain 19 §:n mukaiseen kertakaikkiseen korvaukseen on indeksitarkistus tehtävä kertakaikkisen korvauksen uuden myöntämisajankohdan eli korvauksen maksamisajankohdan mukaan silloin, kun aikaisempaa päätöstä on muutoksenhakuasteessa muutettu.
AI generated
insurance_1988_6561-1987
Accident insurance claim rejected for index increase as accident insurance excludes statutory indexation.
insurance_2009_2134-2008
Insurance court allowed claimant to deduct lump-sum work injury compensation monthly from pension instead of one-time reduction.
kho-precedent_2013_108
Late appeal dismissed; court extends deadline only if procurement decision was substantively flawed.
kho-precedent_2015_101
Court dismisses appeal regarding environmental permit condition expiry due to legislative change. The court held that a specific condition for plan submission did not constitute a mandatory review obligation. The court ruled that the condition was not a review obligation subject to legislative change. The court found no grounds to alter the administrative court's decision based on the case facts. The court determined the condition was not a review obligation under the new law. The court concluded the condition was not a review obligation under the new law.
kho-precedent_2006_45
Tax authority ordered back payments for 1997-2001; Supreme Court allowed due to good faith reliance on prior practice.

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

Tapaturmavakuutuslain 19 §:n mukaiseen kertakaikkiseen korvaukseen on indeksitarkistus tehtävä kertakaikkisen korvauksen uuden myöntämisajankohdan eli korvauksen maksamisajankohdan mukaan silloin, kun aikaisempaa päätöstä on muutoksenhakuasteessa muutettu. Tapaturmalautakunnan päätöstä ei muutettu. II -jaosto