Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 8.1.1985/483:84 AI generated

Insurance court dismissed claim for work injury when injury resulted from extraordinary physical effort rather than standard work activity.

Case Number VakO 8.1.1985/483:84
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 farmer's claim for a work-related injury after the medical board ruled the Achilles tendon rupture stemmed from extraordinary physical effort. The farmer argued the injury occurred during normal work while moving a heavy oven, but the court found the specific lifting technique constituted an exceptional strain. Consequently, the court determined the injury did not arise from the work itself but from the farmer's own unusual exertion, denying coverage.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Insurance Act s. 10; Work Injury Act s. 2: An injury is not considered work-related if it results from extraordinary physical effort or unusual strain not inherent to the normal performance of the job.

Keywords

AI generated
work injury extraordinary effort Achilles tendon insurance coverage physical strain work activity medical assessment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Insurance Act s. 10
Work Injury Act s. 2
AI generated
insurance_1983_11790-1981
Work injury claim dismissed as partial tear from excessive effort, not covered under work accident law.
insurance_1982_7755-1981
Work injury claim dismissed as 20% of shoulder tear was pre-existing age-related degeneration.
insurance_1979_2790-1978
Insurance court dismissed work injury claim for shoulder tear caused by lifting heavy package.
insurance_1975_9480-1974
Insurance court dismissed claim for work injury compensation when back pain occurred during leisure time laundry transport.
insurance_1980_3246-1980
Insurance court dismissed claim for additional compensation due to pre-existing muscle strain aggravating the tear.

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

54 -vuotias maanviljelijä oli siirtänyt kuivurin noin 350 kilon painoista uunia. Hän oli tällöin samanaikaisesti nostanut ja oikealla alaraajalla ponnistaen työntänyt uunia toisesta päästä, jolloin hän oli tuntenut oikeassa alaraajassaan kipua. Hän oli välittömästi mennyt lääkärin vastaanotolle ja siellä oikeassa akillesjänteessä oli todettu repeämä. VAKO katsoi akillesjänteen repeämän johtuneen kerrotun työliikkeen yhteydessä tapahtuneesta poikkeuksellisesta ja ylivoimaisesta alaraajan ponnistuksesta ja olevan niin ollen tapaturman aiheuttama. Tapaturmalautakunnan päätöstä muutettiin. I-jaosto