[Self-inflicted finger-amputation: insurance fraud or accidental injury?]
Standard
[Self-inflicted finger-amputation: insurance fraud or accidental injury?]. / Hildebrand, E; Hitzer, K; Püschel, Klaus.
In: Versicherungsmedizin, Vol. 58, No. 1, 1, 2006, p. 29-33.Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - [Self-inflicted finger-amputation: insurance fraud or accidental injury?]
AU - Hildebrand, E
AU - Hitzer, K
AU - Püschel, Klaus
PY - 2006
Y1 - 2006
N2 - A 50-year-old surgeon was working with his electrical circle saw as a do-it-yourselfer. He was alone, nobody witnessed his mishap when he amputated his left index finger. He claimed high financial compensation from two accident insurance companies because of his disability. A long series of medical expertises followed. The juridical procedures took 12 years in total. All higher authorities had to deal with the forensic medical implications. Finally, the high court (Bundesgerichtshof) decided that the complainant would receive no compensation because he gave two very different descriptions. Concerning the reconstruction of the accident, the first version was unlikely from a biomechanical point of view. The decision of the court was solely based on the violation of the obligation to give a clear presentation of the course of events (Obliegenheitsverletzung).
AB - A 50-year-old surgeon was working with his electrical circle saw as a do-it-yourselfer. He was alone, nobody witnessed his mishap when he amputated his left index finger. He claimed high financial compensation from two accident insurance companies because of his disability. A long series of medical expertises followed. The juridical procedures took 12 years in total. All higher authorities had to deal with the forensic medical implications. Finally, the high court (Bundesgerichtshof) decided that the complainant would receive no compensation because he gave two very different descriptions. Concerning the reconstruction of the accident, the first version was unlikely from a biomechanical point of view. The decision of the court was solely based on the violation of the obligation to give a clear presentation of the course of events (Obliegenheitsverletzung).
M3 - SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz
VL - 58
SP - 29
EP - 33
IS - 1
M1 - 1
ER -
