Therefore, the plaintiff petitions for compensation in the global sum of ILS 30,000 for past expenses.
In addition, the plaintiff petitions for compensation for the use of medical cannabis until the end of her life expectancy, in the amount of ILS 500 per month, together with incidental expenses, as well as for the expenses of CBT treatments privately, medications and private doctors' fees for the purpose of consultation and treatment in the future.
- The defendants claim that the plaintiff also suffered from pain prior to the accident and required medical treatment and painkillers, as indicated by the medical records. In addition, the plaintiff used to receive massages regularly, and even admitted in her interrogation that she used to consume cannabis even before the accident, as she testified and as the neighbor testified.
The plaintiff received the license to use medical cannabis only in 2024, more than five years after the accident, and therefore it is not possible to establish a causal connection to the need to use cannabis. The components of chronic pain suffered by the plaintiff appear in medical records years before the accident, and the plaintiff suffers from severe chronic migraine. Accordingly, the neurology expert determined that only a quarter of the disability in the field of pain should be attributed to the injury following the accident, at a rate of 1.25%, which constitutes a minor disability that has no functional significance or the need for medication. Accordingly, none of the court's experts determined the need for cannabis treatment in a causal connection with back pain of nerve origin, and according to the ruling in these circumstances, there is no room for awarding compensation.
- The neurology expert, Dr. Koritzky, replied in his interrogation that medical cannabis can be recommended for the treatment of pain [Proc. 11-12]: "Cannabis helps relieve pain of any kind, that is, it is not specific. By the way, it's less good than aspirin in terms of pain, but it has all kinds of other additives, meaning to get the pain and more, it's not a pain medication par excellence but it has benefits that sometimes you don't get with regular pain medications." The expert confirmed that there is no age limit for the use of medical cannabis, and that it is appropriate as long as it assists the patient. Later, the expert clarified that cannabis treatment is not intended for neuropathic pain, but for general pain. The expert noted that the plaintiff was recommended for specific treatment with a drug for neuropathic pain, but she preferred not to take the drug.
- From the aforesaid it appears that on the one hand, the expert's words support for the treatment of medical cannabis for the pain from which the plaintiff suffers; On the other hand, the expert did not recommend this in the opinion, but only confirmed that as long as the treatment is beneficial to the plaintiff, it can be continued. Medical cannabis treatment is a general treatment of pain and not a specific treatment for the neuropathic pain that the plaintiff suffers, with other factors causing the pain in the background, and accordingly the expert found it appropriate to attribute to the accident only a quarter of the disability rate in this area. In addition, the fact that the plaintiff issued a license to use medical cannabis only in 2024, more than five years after the accident, even though she was accustomed to using cannabis even earlier, weakens to some extent the causal connection between the need to use cannabis and the specific pain caused by the accident. In any event, given the other pains suffered by the plaintiff, it would be fair to attribute to the accident at most a quarter of the amount of the expense for the treatment.
- The compensation for expenses must be awarded in accordance with the overarching principle of awarding compensation regarding the restoration of the situation as it was (Civil Appeal 357/80 Naim v. Barda [published in Nevo] (July 15, 1982)). Admittedly, this is a "special damage" that must be proven by evidence, both with regard to the need for the expense and with regard to the actual expenditure (see D. Harvesting the Law of Torts at p. 11; Civil Appeal 4986/91 HaMagen Insurance Company in Tax Appeal v. Nahum [published in Nevo] (March 22, 1994)); However, where it has been proven that there is a need for medical treatments, including previous hospitalization and expected hospitalization, ongoing physiotherapy treatments, medical follow-up and related travel expenses, as well as the purchase of painkillers, it is possible to rule on the low and safe side of the estimate (Civil Appeal 307/77 Mor v. Estate of the late Shaya Butz [published in Nevo] (February 2, 1978); Civil Case 1616/04 Scharf v. Assuta - Medical Centers in Tax Appeal [published in Nevo] (August 23, 2009)).
- The plaintiff presented receipts for past expenses, a significant part of which relate to private expenses, which were incurred in parallel with the treatments the plaintiff received at the health fund. In addition, the plaintiff suffers from additional problems that required treatment even before the accident, and therefore at least part of the expenses incurred should be attributed to the additional problems from which the plaintiff suffers. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is possible to estimate the compensation due to the plaintiff for past expenses and in a causal connection with the accident in the amount of ILS 5,000.
As for future expenses for CBT treatments, medications and private doctors' fees, I am of the opinion that there is no basis for awarding compensation. Although the court-appointed expert recommended CBT treatments, he noted that they can be received at a health fund. In any event, with the exception of a few visits to a psychiatrist at the health fund, in the years that have passed since the accident, the plaintiff has not sought any mental health treatment, and it is not claimed that she refrained from treatment due to lack of money. The plaintiff testified that she was interested in avoiding treatments and taking medications, and that she did not take the medications that were offered to her, and therefore there was no justification for providing additional expenses. The same applies to the cost of specialist doctors' fees - the plaintiff did not show the need for visits to specialist doctors in addition to the treatment she receives at the health plan, and did not show justification for awarding compensation for such expenses.