The determination of the degree of functional disability is a matter at the discretion of the trial court, which is directly influenced by the testimonies brought before it regarding the condition of the victim (see, for example, Civil Appeal 9703/10 Samer v. Menorah Insurance Company in a Tax Appeal [published in Nevo] (June 12, 2011); Civil Appeal 7871/10 Khoury v. Clal Insurance Company in Tax Appeal [published in Nevo] (May 22, 2011)).
Determination of functional impairment
- In order to determine the plaintiff's functional status following the accident, the evidence brought in this regard must be examined.
- In her testimony, the plaintiff again described her functional difficulties as a result of the pain she suffers, which began to affect her functioning in the days following the accident. However, after resting at her home for three days, the plaintiff came to work as usual on Sunday, April 22, 2018, and did not ask for sick days, even though she often did so. The plaintiff was asked about this in her interrogation and testified that she was able to work. At that time, the plaintiff received a letter of invitation to a hearing before dismissal, due to allegations regarding the employment relationship, and regardless of the accident.
According to the minutes of the hearing that took place on April 25, 2018, the plaintiff made no mention of the existence of the accident and its impact on its functioning. The plaintiff claimed in her testimony that at the time of the hearing, a few days after she went for medical treatment at the emergency center, she was exhausted and in great pain, and in any case she raised all her claims. In practice, according to the minutes of the hearing, the plaintiff's theory about her functional difficulties relates only to a hearing problem, the need to adapt to a new hearing aid, and the mental difficulty resulting from it, which required psychological treatment. The plaintiff had no explanation for the content of the transcript, and for the fact that it did not include a mention of the accident, but only clarified that she had not edited it [Prov. at p. 32].