Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 28.1.1986/1769:85 AI generated

Work-related aggravation of pre-existing condition due to specific lifting action constitutes an accident under Finnish insurance law.

Case Number VakO 28.1.1986/1769:85
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court overturned the insurance court's decision to deny coverage for a worker's aggravated cervical disc herniation. Although the worker had a pre-existing condition, the court found that a specific, unusual lifting action combined with the pre-existing weakness directly caused the herniation. Consequently, the court ruled that the aggravation of the pre-existing condition constituted a compensable work-related accident.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Act 1050/1985 on Work-Related Accidents; Act 1051/1985 on Work-Related Accidents: An aggravation of a pre-existing medical condition caused by a specific, unusual work action constitutes a work-related accident under Finnish insurance law.

Keywords

AI generated
work-related accident pre-existing condition aggravation cervical herniation lifting action insurance coverage causation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Act 1050/1985 on Work-Related Accidents
Act 1051/1985 on Work-Related Accidents
AI generated
kko-other_2001_439
Work injury claim dismissed because pre-existing pain was not a direct cause of the new muscle tear.
kko-other_2001_1723
Work accident claim denied when pre-existing shoulder condition was the primary cause of injury.
kko-other_1997_4250
Supreme Court held that a gap between the third and fourth lumbar vertebrae is not a compensable accident consequence under private accident insurance.
kko-precedent_2007_60
Supreme Court allows compensation for chronic neck pain aggravated by accident despite pre-existing degeneration.
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

Työntekijä oli nostaessaan kahden työtoverinsa kanssa autonsa perää ja toisen työtoverin jalan livetessä venähdyttänyt kaularankansa. Lisäksi hänen oli todettu potevan kaularankarappeumaa. Niska-hartialihaksen venähdyksestä oli suoritettu päivärahaa, korvausta kolmen viikon ajalta. Tutkimuksissa todettiin VIVII kaulanikamaväliruston esiinluiskahdus. Vakuutusoikeus katsoi, että kaularankarappeuma, joka sinänsä ei ole tapaturman aiheuttama, oli poikkeuksellisen nostosuorituksen ja venähdyksen johdosta pahentunut seurauksin, että työntekijä oli saanut VI-VII kaulanikamaväliruston esiinluiskahduksen. Tapaturmalautakunnan päätöstä muutettiin. III-jaosto