Lifting the heavy package caused severe eye damage

Nava (pseudonym), 57, manager of a logistics center in the central region, during her work lifted several heavy packages that included clothing, footwear and furniture weighing 12 to 30 kg. While lifting one of the packages, she began to feel blurred vision and dizziness – and went to the emergency room. This claim was the basis of a lawsuit submitted to the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court through attorney Assaf Drechler from Markman Tomshin & Co.

According to what is described in the lawsuit, during an examination conducted on Nava in the emergency room, a sharp decrease in visual acuity in the right eye and a retinal detachment due to a tear in it were diagnosed.

After submitting the claim against the National Insurance to the Labor Court, The court appointed Dr. Gabriel Carmon for a medical opinion. The expert clarified that he is aware that the prevailing school of thought among ophthalmologists holds that physical exertion in itself does not necessarily cause a retinal tear, unless it is a direct damage caused to the eye. At the same time, he stated that in this case, it was a woman who performed work that was very unusual in nature, and that the degeneration of the eye from which she suffered in the past also contributed to the worsening of the incident. The expert added that lifting the package caused a sharp increase in pressure in her upper body, which led to under-eye pressure that caused a tear in the edge of the degenerative area in her eye. The expert concluded that his experience shows that in cases where there is a previous disease – such as the degeneration in this case, and when unusual physical effort is added – a causal link is created between the physical action and the injury to the eye that caused the retinal tear.

In the summary made at the court hearing, his lawyer claimed that the expert’s opinion should be taken into account. However, the National Insurance rejected the expert’s claim, without providing a different opinion or justifying the rejection.

The court ruled that no reason was found to reject the expert’s opinion, and ruled that it was a work accident that affected Nava’s eye condition, and that lifting the load made it worse. The court concluded that in view of what was said in the expert’s opinion, and that no reason was given not to accept what was said in it, the claim is accepted. Therefore, obliged the National Insurance Nava’s lawyer’s fees, which amounted to NIS 6,000.

Attorney Drachler explains that following the verdict, Nava will be summoned to a medical committee that will determine the rate of disability as a result of the eye injury and according to the rate, the amount of the disability allowance to which she will be entitled will be determined.