Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 5.11.1998/4545:98 AI generated

Insurance court dismissed claim for insulin cooler as work disability aid under Finnish Insurance Act.

Case Number VakO 5.11.1998/4545:98
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Finnish Insurance Court dismissed the truck driver's request to replace a truck refrigerator with disability care funds. The court determined the device did not meet the legal definition of a work disability aid because it did not improve or preserve the applicant's work capacity. Consequently, the court ruled that the cooler provided no benefit for the applicant's ability to perform work tasks.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Insurance Act 1993, s. 10; Disability Care Act 1982, s. 1: A device is only compensable as a work disability aid if it is necessary to improve or preserve work capacity and provides a direct benefit for performing work tasks.

Keywords

AI generated
work disability aid insurance compensation diabetes equipment work capacity preservation Finnish Insurance Act medical necessity truck driver benefits

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Insurance Act 1993, s. 10
Disability Care Act 1982, s. 1
AI generated
insurance_2002_4049-1999
Insurance Court quashed decision for violating EU Regulation 574/72 procedural rules on cross-border pension appeals.
labour_1973_18
Labor unions fined for insufficient strike prevention measures violating collective agreement peace clauses.
kko-precedent_2010_14
Supreme Court reversed lower court dismissal, holding unauthorized eye exams for glasses constitute practicing medicine without license.
kko-precedent_2005_34
Supreme Court dismisses judge's dismissal appeal, finding permanent loss of work capacity due to illness.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2020:125
Supreme Administrative Court refers to CJEU whether three-year supervised doctor registration violates EU freedom of establishment.

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, joka oli ammatiltaan autonkuljettaja ja sairasti diabetesta, oli vaatinut kuorma-autoon hankittavan jääkaapin korvaamista sairaudenhoitoon liittyvänä apuvälineenä. VakO katsoi, ettei kuorma-autoon sijoitettavan jääkaapin hankintaa voitu tukea kuntoutusvaroin, koska kysymyksessä ei ollut lain tarkoittama apuväline, joka on tarpeen työkyvyn ja ansiomahdollisuuksien parantamiseksi tai säilyttämiseksi siten, että jääkaapista olisi valittajalle hyötyä työstä suoriutumiselle. VakO hylkäsi valituksen.

Jaosto:II Äänestys: