A resident of Elad, a familiar figure in the city, tore the meniscus in his leg while trying to get his guests into the city gate of Elad, near the entrance of Shabbat | The tribunal forced the Social Security to recognize the incident as an accident: “This is a sudden, unforeseen and unplanned malfunction”
A resident of Elad, a well-known figure in the city, demanded that the National Insurance Institute acknowledge an unusual accident that occurred at the gate of the Elad settlement and asked to receive an “accident allowance.” After the National Insurance Institute rejected the lawsuit and claimed that overall he made a bad move, and that he was not physically harmed by the gate, the victim appealed the ruling to the Tel Aviv Labor Court.
An appeal filed through attorney Jonathan Meyer of the Schwartz firm of Mayer Barda shows that about three and a half years ago, the plaintiff arrived on foot from his home to the city gate of Elad to assist his guests who encountered a closed gate, about half an hour before Shabbat.
As he bent under the gate to help them enter, he twisted his right knee and tore the meniscus. After he was injured, he continued to the synagogue with his brother-in-law – and after Shabbat, he showed up at the emergency room at the hospital.
As a result of the accident, the victim was forced to be absent from work for more than three months. Judge Dagit Weissman of the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court ruled that according to his version, the plaintiff injured his knee while performing a rotational movement of the knee while kneeling under the gate of the settlement that was down towards the beginning of Shabbat. “This is not just a walk or a routine activity, but a sudden, unexpected and unplanned mishap, the occurrence of which is clear and can be discerned and pointed out.”
Adv. Jonathan Meyer / Photo: Nurit Shenkar
The judge added that even if the plaintiff was not directly injured by the gate or another external factor, there is no impediment in the circumstances of his specific injury, to recognize this injury as an “accident” under section 150 of the Social Security Law. At the closed gate. “
The court accepted the claim and even ruled that the Social Security must pay the plaintiff a sum of NIS 5,000 for his lawyer’s fees. Following the ruling, the injured party will receive compensation from the National Insurance Institute, in accordance with his salary for the three months in which he was forced to be absent from work.
Advocate Jonathan Meyer stated: “Accident benefits are intended to compensate a person who was injured in an accident that is not a road accident or a work accident and by the way lost his ability to work. “Such accidents occur every day, outside of work, at home and abroad, even abroad, and it is important that people who are injured know that in certain circumstances they may be entitled to high compensation from the National Insurance Institute.” According to Advocate Meyer, the tribunal, “in a correct and just judgment, he recognized him as an accident victim and in this way preserved his rights as an accident victim and the purpose for which the National Insurance Institute was established.”