Arbitration Claims (Tel Aviv) 58922-01-17 Uri Itzhaki v. Netanya Sports and Basketball Promotion Company Ltd.

We have before us an application filed by the Applicant on January 25, 2017 to set aside an arbitral award, which was given on November 10, 2016 by the arbitrator, Adv. Israel Shimoni, in an appeal against an arbitral award of the Arbitration Institute of the Israel Basketball Association, by Adv. Gabriel Kraus (hereinafter: the "Arbitration Award").

Background and Procedure

1. The applicant is a former professional basketball player.

The Respondent is a company that owned, managed and operated the Elitzur Maccabi Netanya basketball team, in which the Applicant played.

2. per day 01.09.10 The Applicant signed a players' agreement with the Respondent (Below: "The Agreement") in which it was determined that his salary for the basketball season 2010/2011 It will be in total 374,280 ₪ Gross(and 392,448 ₪ For the 2011/2012 season).
3. According to the Applicant, During a workout during the day 21.10.10 He began to suffer from severe pain in his back It was decided that he would not participate in the upcoming sports activities. per day 21.11.10, After participating in the game, Get Started The pain of the applicant's father in the lower back to overcome.  After a comprehensive series of medical tests, The applicant's doctors determined that he would no longer be able to return to sporting activity at a professional level.  Close to the doctors' determination, The Respondent informed the Applicant that it was stopping paying his wages.
4. The applicant filed a lawsuit with the Football Association's Arbitration Institute, in which he petitioned to pay him his salary for the entire season, including bonuses and differences.
5. per day 04.02.16 An arbitral award was given By 77"D. Gabriel Kraus, תוך who examined the cause of the plaintiff's cessation of activity, When he had a clause in front of his eyes 8(The)(8) to the agreement that talks about the payment of the amounts specified in the agreement even in the event of an injury "At any time during the term of the agreement".  In his judgment Fixed The Selector Kraus that There is no choice but to determine, that the cause of the plaintiff's cessation of activity was a degeneration of the disc, which is by nature a slow process, Gradual, that lasts for many years and this type of injury cannot be included in the provisions of the 8 (The)(8) To the players' agreement, which speaks of cases that occurred during the period of The Agreement And not those that were discovered during it.  The arbitrator also ruled that there is no doubt that a degenerative disease that"J All reviews presented, Prior to the signing of the agreement between the parties, cannot be included in the framework of matters to which the provisions of the section apply, However, since it was not proven that the plaintiff knew about the existence of his illness and hid something from the defendant, It cannot be said that the plaintiff acted in bad faith.  The arbitrator further ruled that the defendant was negligent in her medical examinations before signing the agreement, And when the agreement is signed and goes into effect, Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to complete the payments that the defendant undertook for the season of games 2010/2011 ("Arbitrator Kraus").
6. The Respondent appealed the award of Arbitrator Krauss, and on the 10.11.16 A ruling was given The Appeal, By the Arbitrator 77"4 Israel Shimoni, which determined that even if there was negligence on the part of the defendant in the plaintiff's medical examinations, This is not a legal basis for requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff's salary until the end of the season, For in order to establish a tort, a causal connection between the act is required/Failure and Damage.

Had in-depth examinations been carried out and the degeneration of the plaintiff's back vertebrae had been discovered, not only would the plaintiff not have been entitled to the balance of his salary, but the agreement would not have come into effect and the plaintiff would not have been entitled to the salary paid to him for the period prior to the shutdown.