12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)
Thus, the plaintiff's claim that the accident occurred on her way home from work was contradicted. It should be noted that the plaintiff did not insist on her interrogation of the location report, and she also ignored these data in the summaries of her claims, and in any case did not provide an explanation for the data detailed therein.
- The plaintiff's claim was also contradicted by taking into account the estimated travel time, as indicated by her testimony, as opposed to the time she left her place of work and the time when the accident occurred.
The attendance report attached to the claim indicates that the plaintiff left work at 17:54. The time of the accident, according to the plaintiff's affidavit, is 18:49 (and this is also evident from the police report), i.e., the accident occurred about an hour after the plaintiff left her work. The plaintiff was asked in her interrogation about the estimated travel time from her place of work to her home, and replied that the time taken to leave work from the moment the card was stamped, about 7-10 minutes, should be taken into account, and then she stated as follows: "Yes, it is around, so the trip is around 40 minutes, even less if we take the actual calculation" (p. 8, paras. 11-22). Thus, the estimated travel time from the place of work to the plaintiff's place of residence, which is approximately 40 minutes at most, is inconsistent with the fact that the accident occurred about an hour after the plaintiff left work, all the more so that according to the plaintiff, the accident occurred before she reached her home.
- From the aforesaid, it is clear that the accident did not occur on the way from the plaintiff's work to her home, or alternatively, the accident occurred during a deviation or break from the usual route. Both options lead to the clear conclusion that the accident should not be considered a work accident.
- It should be noted more than necessary that the evidence presented by the plaintiff also does not prove her version that the accident occurred on her way home from work. Thus, for example, during her cross-examination, the plaintiff spontaneously presented a message that she had sent to her manager, from the morning of the day after the date of the accident (p. 14, para. 3). In the same message, the plaintiff informed the manager of the accident, but she did not mention that the accident occurred while she was traveling home from work. The only evidence that could have supported the plaintiff's version is the first medical certificate of the work injury victim dated August 20,2024 (N/5), in which it was noted that "yesterday she was involved in a road accident on the way from work", but given the above, this evidence can at most lead to the conclusion that the accident occurred with a deviation or break from the usual road, and the plaintiff's version does not include factual claims regarding a deviation or break from the road. In any case, nothing has been argued as to the nature of the deviation.
- On the basis of all of the above, the claim is dismissed. Since this is a claim in the field of social security, and not without hesitation, there is no order for costs.
- The right to appeal this judgment to the National Labor Court, within 30 days of its receipt.
It will be given today, August 12,2026, in the absence of the parties and will be sent to them.
| Mr. Yosef Cohen Skip to content |