Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 5.12.1995/2723:95 AI generated

Insurance court dismissed claim for work-related Lyme disease compensation due to lack of evidence linking tick bite to farming duties.

Case Number VakO 5.12.1995/2723:95
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 applicant's claim for compensation regarding Lyme disease contracted in autumn 1993. The applicant argued the tick bite occurred during farming work, but the court found no evidence placing the bite in the specific conditions of that employment. Consequently, the claim was rejected because the statutory requirement to prove the disease arose from work-related circumstances was not met.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

MATA 6 § 2 momentti; The court held that compensation for work-related Lyme disease requires proof the tick bite occurred during or in conditions directly connected to the applicant's farming duties.

Keywords

AI generated
Lyme disease compensation work-related injury farming duties insurance court burden of proof

Cited Legislation

AI generated
MATA 6 § 2 momentti
AI generated
admin_2012_kuopio__185
City fulfilled duty to assess alternative placement despite teacher's refusal of medical and trial assessments.
kko-precedent_2005_35
Supreme Court voids penalty order for failure to deduct time in custody from fine in drug offense case.
insurance_1968_5385-1981
Insurance court dismissed claim for work-related shoulder injury compensation due to lack of direct causal link between repetitive welding and specific tendonitis.
labour_2000_40
Union rep's dismissal upheld for repeated duty breaches despite prior warnings under collective agreement.
admin_1999_turku-and-pori-county__274
Administrative court allows medical certificate fee for driver's license renewal as special expense for social assistance.

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

A:lle ilmaantui syksyllä 1993 tunnottomuutta oikeaan alaraajaan ja alaselkään. Hän hakeutui lääkärin vastaanotolle 15.11.1993, jolloin hänellä katsottiin olevan borrelioosi, joka on erään tietyn punkin aiheuttama sairaus. A vaati korvausta ja katsoi, että punkki on puraissut häntä maatalousyrittäjän työssä. A ilmoitti, ettei hänellä ollut lainkaan vapaa-aikaa siihen aikaan kun borrelioosia aiheuttava punkki liikkuu. VakO katsoi, ettei asiassa ole näytetty, että A:n borrelioosin aiheuttanut punkin puraisu olisi sattunut hänen MATA 6 §:n 2 momentissa tarkoitetussa maatalousyrittäjätyössään tai siitä johtuvissa olosuhteissa.

Jaosto:II Äänestys: