A: That's right.
Q: Half of this is for the spinal area and out of the half 2.5 percent we need to understand what is degenerative and what is the result of that traumatic event.
A: That's right.
Q: If you try anyway, even if it's some kind of thing,
A: It's completely speculative, I don't know how to say fifty percent,
Q: Half and half?
(Talking Together)
The Court: Half half half half?
A: Yes, yes."
In a re-examination, the expert insisted on his determination that the plaintiff's total disability was 5%, and that the imaging findings showed degenerative changes and confinement of the root, which could be a source of pain, and therefore he insists on his determination.
Therefore, at the end of the neurology expert's interrogation, it was determined that half of the disability rate, i.e., 1.25%, should be attributed to the accident in a causal connection.
The plaintiff's medical condition in the field of psychiatry
- Leonid Gorodetsky was appointed to examine the plaintiff's medical condition in the mental field. The expert reviewed the plaintiff's history and medical history, which did not include documentation in the mental field prior to the accident. The expert detailed the plaintiff's complaints of mental difficulty due to the chronic pain she suffers, as well as as the medical documentation after the accident, which included four psychiatric visits to the HMO between 2018 and 2022, without a continuum of treatment.
In the chapter of the hearing, the expert noted that he was impressed by signs of anxiety and depression with a low threshold of frustration, a slight disturbance in mental and social functioning, and a slight limitation in his ability to work, all against the background of the pain that the plaintiff suffers following the accident. Therefore, a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with a depressive and anxious response has been determined, with chronic pain as the cause of stress. Accordingly, it was clarified that " the connection between this disorder and the accident exists to the extent that the pain from which she suffers is the consequences of the accident in question." Accordingly, it was determined that the possibility of worsening or improving the plaintiff's condition is also mainly related to the severity of the pain in the future.