Prof. Wolpin examined the plaintiff and examined the documents presented to him and produced his opinion of August 26, 2011 (P/1). In his opinion, he noted that a review of the medical records in the plaintiff's case found many records of neck and lower back pain and pain in the right shoulder prior to the incident. Among other things, the plaintiff was referred for an imaging test due to the pain in his shoulder about three weeks before the incident. The expert added that he did not find any findings indicating anatomical injury to the lumbar spine, injury to the lower back or injury to the left shoulder during the assault incident. However, he was of the opinion that the assault may have caused a certain deterioration in the plaintiff's previous condition, and therefore he set the plaintiff's disability due to this aggravation at 5% due to a slight limitation in the movement of the cervical spine and 5% due to the pain and limitations of movement of the right shoulder. In total, he estimated that the plaintiff had a weighted disability due to the deterioration of his condition at a rate of 9.75%. The expert also answered questions for clarification and was even questioned in court, but did not change his mind.
Psychiatrist Dr. Keret also examined the plaintiff and produced her opinion of June 1, 2011. The expert found that the plaintiff had a certain degree of mental injury following the assault incident. However, she noted that this is not post-traumatic stress syndrome (P.T.S.D.) but rather "[...] "A post-head traumatic state" with post-traumatic elements. The expert added that there are clear elements of exaggeration. The expert estimated that the mental disability following the assault incident was only 10%.
- After receiving the opinion, the parties waived Dr. Keret's interrogation. Prof. Wolfin answered questions for clarification and was interrogated at the request of the prosecutor. Afterwards, testimonies were heard regarding the circumstances of the incident and the damage. The entire investigation file was also submitted to the police.
It should be noted that counsel for defendants 2-3 appeared for most of the meetings, but not for all of them. It should also be noted that defendants 2-3 did not testify and did not summon any witnesses on their behalf. Defendants 2-3 also did not file a summary of claims, even though they were given an extension to file and even though they were sent warnings due to failures in filing.