Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 439/2001 AI generated

Work injury claim dismissed because pre-existing pain was not a direct cause of the new muscle tear.

Case Number KKO 439/2001
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Finland dismissed the claimant's request for work injury compensation following a tear in the biceps brachii. The claimant argued that a pre-existing, severe pain in the elbow was the direct cause of the injury sustained during work. The court ruled that the pre-existing condition was merely a contributing factor rather than the direct cause of the new injury.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Accident Act; Work Injury Act: A pre-existing medical condition constitutes a direct cause of a work injury only if the injury would not have occurred without that condition, not merely if it aggravated the symptoms.

Keywords

AI generated
work injury compensation direct cause requirement pre-existing condition biceps brachii tear Accident Act 1982 work injury liability causation analysis

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Accident Act 1982
Work Injury Act 1982
AI generated
kko-other_2000_2583
Supreme Court allows compensation for work-related muscle strain treated as occupational disease under Finnish Act on Work-Related Diseases.
kko-other_2006_2143
Supreme Court dismissed claim for work accident compensation for tendon rupture due to lack of causation between work and injury.
insurance_1979_2790-1978
Insurance court dismissed work injury claim for shoulder tear caused by lifting heavy package.
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-other_2002_772
Work injury claim rejected because pain felt during lifting was not a direct result of the specific injury.

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 oli tuntenut painavaa elementtiä nostaessaan vasemman käden kyynärpään sisäpuolella pistävää kipua. Hänellä oli sittemmin todettu vasemman hauislihaksen etäisemmän pään repeämä. Kysymys oikeudesta tapaturmavakuutuslain mukaiseen korvaukseen.