After the plaintiff's claim for recognition by the General Disability Division was rejected due to the fact that the 30% disability determined for her due to hearing loss did not meet the required threshold, the plaintiff filed a reclaim on October 7, 2019, stating that she suffers from orthopedic problems following an accident on April 19, 2018. In a hearing held in the medical committee on November 25, 2019, the plaintiff stated that she had been involved in an accident while riding a motorcycle a year and a half earlier, and had received a strong blow to her lower spine and had been suffering from pain with radiation to her leg ever since. The medical committee reviewed the imaging findings attached by the plaintiff and determined that she suffers from back pain due to abrasion, which gives her a medical disability of 10%. The findings of the clinical examination conducted by the committee did not find any limitations or muscle wasting, and the disability was determined due to a diagnosis of radiculopathy in the legs on the basis of imaging findings that showed abrasive changes, a very central and left calcified disc protrusion, and a moderate protrusion in the L vertebrae 4-5.
As part of the appeal that the plaintiff filed with the General Disability Division, she was examined by an occupational doctor, and an opinion was given in her case by a social worker in the rehabilitation department. In the opinion dated December 31, 2019, a comprehensive reference was given to the plaintiff's problems on the employment level, including back pain, and in the summary it was determined that due to her hearing loss, the plaintiff has limitations in certain office jobs, and therefore she will be able to integrate into jobs that do not involve sharp hearing and do not include receiving audiences or prolonged phone calls, when no disability due to back pain was noted.
- From the totality of the data presented above, it appears that in practice, years after the date of the accident, the plaintiff's functional disability is lighter than her medical disability.
After the recovery period, the plaintiff returned to full-time office work, and after changing several jobs regardless of her back pain, she was able to integrate into a permanent and stable job at a higher salary.