Supreme Court President criticises Insurance Court

Supreme Court President criticises Insurance Court

Pauliine Koskelo

print this

Pauliine Koskelo, the President of the Finnish Supreme Court, has criticised rulings of Finland’s Insurance Court, which are often overturned on appeal.
      She says that it is far too often that the Supreme Court ends up striking down decisions of the Insurance Court, which specialises in cases involving disputes over pensions and other insurance-related matters.
      “For the parties concerned, it is not a satisfactory situation from the point of view of due process that we have to resolve so many of these issues”, Koskelo says.
     
In 2010 the Supreme Court overturned an Insurance Court decision concerning wrist pains suffered by an entrepreneur. The Insurance Court did not see a connection between the pains and the work involved, but the Supreme Court did. The man’s pension rose from EUR 1,700 to EUR 3,000 a month.
      The Supreme Court has handled increasing numbers of appeals of Insurance Court cases. In 2004 the court agreed to hear two such cases, but in 2010 there were 24. Last year there were just eight.
     
In many of the cases the Supreme Court has found in favour of plaintiffs suffering from work-related injuries or diseases.
      Koskelo says that it appears that even though an exceptionally large number of cases have been heard, the rulings have not changed the principles on which the Insurance Court has been making its decisions.
     
In the view of Jyrki Virolainen, Professor Emeritus of Administration of Justice at the University of Helsinki, the insurance Court takes a fairly tough line toward the problems of private individuals.
      Jaana Norio-Timonen, Professor of Insurance and Accident Compensation Law at the University of Helsinki, says that the percentage of insurance law cases in the Supreme Court has risen in recent years. “A surprisingly large proportion of the cases have dealt with these matters”, she says.
     
The head judge of the Insurance Court, Juha Pystynen, says that the court does make note of the decisions of the Supreme Court.
      Pystynen also says that the Insurance court has noticed that the Supreme Court has increasingly ruled in favour of plaintiffs appealing negative decisions.
      “I cannot say why the trend there has suddenly changed”, Pystynen says. “The lines taken by the Insurance Court have stayed fairly similar over the years.”
     
In many of the cases, the Supreme Court has found in favour of a person lodging an appeal on the basis of doctors’ statements given by the National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health (VALVIRA). However, VALVIRA said last year that it no longer has the capacity to give medical testimony in insurance cases.
      The Supreme Court says that VALVIRA’s decision is causing a serious problem from the point of view of due process, because those lodging an appeal often cannot afford to get a statement from a medical specialist.
      Koskelo says that the change may raise the threshold to appeals to the Supreme Court. She notes that in such situations, the person seeking justice often has limited financial resources available.
     


Links:
  Supreme Court
  Insurance Court

Helsingin Sanomat