The expert further referred to other pain factors that the plaintiff suffers from, as indicated by the medical records, including disc protrusions that create pressure on the cervical spine, pain in the shoulder blades, and migraine pain. The expert agreed that it is possible that the fall and injury to the tailbone in 2016 also caused damage to the plaintiff's spine, contrary to the orthopedic expert's determination.
Regarding the overlap between the disability he determined and the disability determined in the orthopedic expert's opinion, the expert agreed that there is a complete overlap, and that the more appropriate factor for making a determination in the neurological field is a neurologist.
When the expert was asked to estimate the degree of disability that must be determined as a result of the accident, he replied that all the factors in the plaintiff's case must be taken into account, with only half of the pain attributed to the spine, and of that only half should be attributed to the event [Prov. at p. 23]:
"Q: ... There is another pain that comes fromS, L5 S1 which is also degenerative changes,
A: It has to be taken into account. First of all, the neurological examination, normal, I mean I didn't find any nerve damage in the neurological examination itself, it's one, I mean, if I found a clear neurological impairment then I would say okay, and refer to it but I didn't find it, so there's the issue of pain here, which is a subjective and existential matter, and it definitely needs to be addressed, so there's this story of the lady with the blow to the back, There are also degenerative changes and there is a history of tailbone injury and so on and so forth. It's very difficult to differentiate things, but you have to take them into account, and maybe some of the things are from the blow and some of the things are degenerative changes that existed in advance.
Q: So if I understood you correctly five percent disability on top of all the pain she has,