The minutes of the hearing indicate that against the background of a conversation with her supervisor, the plaintiff left the workplace without permission and without coordination, and did not appear for two weeks. The plaintiff tried to explain her behavior during the personal crisis she experienced, but in the end it was decided to terminate her employment shortly afterwards.
From the facts relating to the hearing process and the plaintiff's dismissal, as they arise from written documents and the plaintiff's testimony, it can be learned that even in the period prior to the accident, the plaintiff had considerable difficulties that found functional and occupational expression, along with problematic employment relations, and for this reason she was fired from her job. It is also possible to get the impression that at that time the plaintiff did not believe that the accident had an impact on her ability to work or her general condition, and therefore the incident was not mentioned during the hearing.
- After her dismissal, the plaintiff did not work for three and a half months, during which time she again sought medical treatment, and underwent physiotherapy and complementary medicine treatments. According to the orthopedic expert's opinion, the plaintiff was given a period of incapacity for a month and a half after the accident, followed by a temporary disability of 40% for three months and a 20% disability for an additional three months.
In August 2018, the plaintiff began working at the "Circles" fund in an office job, at a salary that was about 20% lower than the salary she had received until the time of the accident. The plaintiff claimed in her affidavit that she wanted to return to the workforce, but due to her limitations she was looking for a job that was comfortable and easy to perform, and therefore she was forced to settle for a lower salary. The plaintiff stated that after a year she was offered a job in a different position and with a higher salary, but due to the lack of agreement on the amount of the salary, she decided to terminate her employment. During her testimony, the plaintiff explained that this was an association that was about to close, and that she was not satisfied with the conditions offered to her, and therefore she chose to leave [Prov. at p. 38].