Therefore, and for good reason, the defendant, who objected from the outset to the appointment of an expert on behalf of the court, did not insist on accepting the opinion after Dr. Yoffe's testimony was heard, even though it turned out that the expert's opinion was not submitted to the case (p. 209, paras. 16-24, p. 210, s. 1).
- Professionals from public medicine, including a neurologist and geriatrician, met the father in the years 2012-2015 (P/11, P/12, P/13), conducted minimental tests for him in which he achieved a score that had been declining over the years (January 2013 - a score of 18/30 (p. 76 P/12), January 2015 - a score of 15/30 (p. 80 P/13)), and determined findings indicating impairment of his cognitive abilities (the defendant - p. 118, paras. 7,16,22,26, p. 120, paras. 17-23, p. 121, paras. 6-19). On the other hand, the defendant is a layman: "Not familiar with the disease"and is not a medical person (p. 127, s. 8, p. 187, s. 24). Therefore, the defendant's testimony does not contradict the objective medical findings.
00This is further strengthened when the defendant himself signed a letter of consent for the appointment of a guardian in 2012 (p. 29 P/4, the defendant - p. 119, s. 7). In this way, he supported the factual position regarding the father's cognitive state at the time, while the explanation he gave in his interrogation - "When my mother asked for something, the likelihood that we would object to her was almost non-existent. .. . I signed it only because my mother said" - unacceptable, especially in view of the significant infringement of the father's autonomy involved in the appointment of a guardian (the defendant - p. 119, paras. 24-26). Therefore, the defendant is silenced and prevented from making a factual claim that contradicts the position he supported at the time [on the purpose of judicial estoppel, see Civil Appeal 2252/17 Sharabi v. Levy, para. 13 [Nevo] (2019)].
0
III. There is a substantial gap between the defendant's version in his affidavit and his testimony in his cross-examination. In his affidavit, the defendant stated emphatically that "My late father understood very well what he had signed" (ibid., paragraph 6). In contrast, in his interrogation he used much more reserved language when he first testified: "I say that my father at the time understood what he was doing, ... He even held my hand and told me I was very happy with what was done, etc., etc., etc." (p. 107, paras. 22-25) and later he said: "I imagine that he understood at that moment what he had signed" (p. 108, para. 3) and clarified that his conclusion was in fact based on his personal feeling: "You want to get into the subtleties, I felt that my father knew what he was doing" (p. 108, paras. 5-6), and also: "Dad gave me the feeling" (p. 122, s. 18), and only afterwards did he add that: "Dad, at that given moment he was very focused, he understood what he was doing" (p. 122, s. 19).