II URN 1/94
AI generated
Supreme Court remands case for retrial due to insufficient fact-finding on whether a fall was a work accident.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court dismissed the extraordinary review request but remanded the case to the lower court for a retrial. The applicant claimed her fall was caused by chicken droppings, while the social insurance fund argued it resulted from a sudden fainting spell. The court found the lower court's decision unreasonable because it failed to investigate the accident's circumstances despite the conflicting evidence in the accident report.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 11 ust. 1 ustawy o ubezpieczeniu społecznym rolników; Art. 421 § 1 k.p.c.; The court must actively ascertain the facts of a work accident when evidence is insufficient, and a decision based on unverified assumptions constitutes a violation of law requiring remittal.
Keywords
AI generated
extraordinary review
work accident
social insurance
factual clarification
remittal for retrial
sudden fainting
agricultural insurance
Cited Legislation
AI generatedArt. 11 ust. 1 ustawy z dnia 20 grudnia 1990 r. o ubezpieczeniu społecznym rolników
Art. 421 § 1 k.p.c.
art. 3 § 2 k.p.c
art. 421 § 1 k.p.c