[...]
(3) Remission, mild clinical signs, there is a need for medication, there is a moderate disturbance in mental or social functioning, as well as a moderate limitation of work capacity of 20%."
For our purposes, the words that were said in the Levy case [see and compare: Civil Appeal (Tel Aviv Department) 1624/96 Levy v. Molcho et al., [published in Nevo] (April 7, 1998)]:
"... In any event, it seems that when it comes to psychiatric disability, the possibility of a gap between medical disability and functional disability is reduced.
In many cases of psychiatric disability, the injury or disorder indicates that the function has been impaired. This can be clearly seen in the case of the appellant. In determining the degree of disability, Prof. Elitzur relied, in the two opinions he gave, on section 34(c) of the Addendum to the National Insurance Regulations (Determination of the Degree of Disability for Work Accident Victims), 5716-1956 (the expert does indeed mention section 34C of the National Insurance Law, but there is no doubt that the reference is to an addition to the regulations that were noted). The aforementioned section speaks in this language: "There are objective and subjective signs that significantly limit social adjustment and ability to work" (emphasis added). The other sections in the appendix to the regulations, in the chapter dealing with psychotic and psychoneurotic disorders, also speak in its various sections about social incompatibility to varying degrees and impairment of the ability to work at varying levels. In other words, when it comes to mental injury, the degree of disability usually indicates both the degree of medical disability and the level of functional disability. Therefore, it would be correct to determine that the rate of disability of the appellant, both medical and functional, is 20 percent." (The emphases are not in the original, they are of the undersigned).
- In the same context, see also the rulings of the Honorable Justice Yitzhak Amit in the Jaber case [Civil Appeal 7008/09 Jaber Adnan Abd al-Rahim v. Musbah Abd al-Qader, (Nevo, September 7, 2010), 14].
- According to my direct impression of the plaintiff, from the existing medical documentation, his personal data and the medication treatment, it appears that his medical disability correctly reflects the rate of deduction from his earning capacity. The defendants and the third party claimed that the plaintiff had background problems that were not related to the incident and that could have affected his current situation. However, the claim has not been substantiated. The defendants and the third party even refrained from questioning the expert about her opinion. This avoidance works against them.
- In light of all of the above, the following is the calculation of the plaintiff's damages:
- Past salary losses: from March 1, 2021 to present:
The plaintiff was able to prove that he suffered only partial wage losses and for the period between March 1, 2021 and to this day. Therefore, on top of this damage, I award the plaintiff the sum of ILS 72,849, according to the following calculation: ILS 9,993 (his average salary in the last three months prior to the termination of his employment) x 20% x 36.45 months = ILS 72,849.
- Future salary losses: ILS 12,379 x 20% x 271 (capitalization factor up to age 67) = ILS 670,942.
- Past and future pension losses: ILS 92,974.
- Past expenses: The plaintiff incurred expenses for his trips to treatments. I estimate their value at ILS 10,000, according to the estimate.
- Future expenses: It has not been proven that the claimant will need medical or other expenses in the future.
- Past and future assistance of a third party: It has not been proven that the plaintiff needs or will need wage assistance, and this has not even been claimed. Nor was it proven that the plaintiff needed help from his family members to an exceptional extent and in a manner that justifies awarding compensation in respect of him. In fact, it has not been proven that the plaintiff required any third-party assistance due to his disability.
- Pain and suffering: Considering the plaintiff's age, the degree and nature of the permanent disability, the humiliation, and the sense of shame as a result of the experience he underwent, I award the plaintiff this damage in the sum of ILS 90,000.
- From the above amounts, the sum of ILS 8,000 must be deducted for the compensation agreed upon between the third party and the plaintiff in the framework of the criminal proceeding.
- The balance for compensation = ILS 929,000 (round amount).
In conclusion
- I accept the claim and order defendant 1 to pay the plaintiff compensation in the sum of ILS 929,000 together with 23.4% for attorney's fees and together with the sum of ILS 11,272 for legal expenses (opening fees, fees of experts and witnesses).
- The amounts will be paid within 30 days from today, otherwise linkage differences and interest will be borne in accordance with law from today until the full payment is actually made.
- The claim against defendant 2 is dismissed. In the circumstances, I do not make an order for costs.
- The notice against the third party is accepted in full, and I oblige the third party to indemnify defendant 1 for any amount it pays to the plaintiff.
- In the circumstances of the case, I do not charge the third party for the defendants' expenses in respect of the notice.
9371678313