Contrary to the plaintiff's statements, a review of the letters on behalf of the employer shows that the plaintiff's employment ended after a hearing proceeding, and she was fired on the basis of "your conduct surrounding the hearing process, conduct that was flawed in the field of employee-employer relations," as stated in the letter dated August 5, 2019. Two days later, another letter was sent, stating that against the background of the plaintiff's conduct, "and the fear of democratization among the fund's employees," it was decided to terminate the plaintiff's actual work immediately, and she was required not to come to the workplace.
After her dismissal, the plaintiff applied for unemployment benefits, and in January 2020 she began working in an office job as an order and delivery operator, when at first she received a lower salary than the salary she received in her original job, but later there was an increase in her salary, and as of 2021 she received a salary similar to the salary she received before the accident, and even a higher salary.
In May 2023, the plaintiff began working as a wage referee at Inbal, under the Accountant General's Department, where she is employed to this day. According to the pay slips attached to the plaintiff's evidence, in her current job she receives a higher (real) salary than she was at the time of the accident.
- A review of the plaintiff's experience in the labor market shows that most of the difficulties in finding a suitable workplace and an appropriate wage stem from issues related to employment relations, even without connection to her limitations and the consequences of the accident, even though they had a certain contribution, since the plaintiff needed treatments in order to improve her condition. In this regard, we must take into account the fact that the plaintiff was fired from two jobs one after the other due to a problematic employment relationship, and it appears that for this reason she was also unable to exhaust her earning capacity, until she found a suitable job.
- From the medical aspect, the orthopedic expert determined in the opinion that the plaintiff suffers from a slight limitation of movement in the lumbar spine, and did not specify what her functional limitations were. The expert determined that he did not believe that the accident impaired the plaintiff's ability to work in an office job. The expert was not questioned on this issue and his opinion remained.
The neurology specialist has not determined any functional limitation. In this regard, it can be assumed that low back pain causes difficulties in daily life, but it should be taken into account that the disability attributed to the accident is 1.25%.