Due to the pain she suffers, the plaintiff was referred to a pain medicine specialist, who determined that there was no nerve deprivation and no pathological relapse. The plaintiff received medication, which caused an increase in the tinnitus from which she suffers as a hearing impaired. The documentation shows that the plaintiff stated that she was not interested in injections, and in the absence of a match for the medication, physiotherapy treatment was recommended.
In addition, the plaintiff sought mental health treatment, and complained of difficulties due to the pain in her spine, along with her personal life circumstances, her employment situation and the hearing impairment she is dealing with.
- As detailed above, in the lawsuit filed in the previous proceeding, an orthopedic specialist was appointed to examine the plaintiff's condition, as well as an otolaryngology specialist due to previous hearing problems (no connection to the accident was found). After the plaintiff renewed her claim in the present proceeding, an expert in the field of neurology was also appointed as well as an expert in the field of psychiatry.
For the purpose of determining the medical and functional disability, I will diagnose the plaintiff's medical condition in each of these areas of medicine, as is evident from the expert opinions and their investigations in the course of the hearing.
The plaintiff's medical condition in the field of orthopedics
- The court-appointed orthopedic expert, Dr. Lotan, detailed in the opinion the plaintiff's complaints of constant pain in the left leg according to the distribution of the L5 and S1 roots, numbness in the external aspect of the left foot, and pain in the lower back and right pelvis. It was also noted that the plaintiff complained of pain in her right shoulder blade.
The expert conducted a comprehensive clinical examination of the plaintiff, and in his conclusions determined that the plaintiff suffers from a slight limitation of movement of the lumbar spine when bent forward, which grants her a degree of disability of 10% according to section 37(7)(a) of the National Insurance Regulations (Determination of the Degree of Disability for Work Accident Victims), 5716-1956 (hereinafter: the "NII Regulations"), without deduction for a previous medical condition. With regard to complaints of pain, it was determined that the plaintiff suffers from radiculopathy in the distribution of S1 on the left, and less than L5, without a motor component (reflexes or muscular weakness), which grants her a degree of disability of 5% according to section 32(1)(a)(I) of the NII Regulations. The expert noted that the plaintiff does not suffer from pain syndrome, and that her pain is expressed in the determination of disability, and therefore there is no need to appoint a neurology expert.