Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
KKO 439/2001 Generato dall'IA

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

Numero d'incarto KKO 439/2001
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Finlandia (FI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

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.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

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.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
work injury compensation direct cause requirement pre-existing condition biceps brachii tear Accident Act 1982 work injury liability causation analysis riesame medico

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Accident Act 1982
Work Injury Act 1982
Generato dall'IA
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.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

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.