Can the National Insurance Commission assign completely different disability percentages to headaches that began after a serious car accident? A stubborn legal battle has recently developed around this strange question.
S., a resident of Tel Sheva, worked as a cleaning worker for a company that provided services to the Beer Sheva municipality. About two years ago, S. was driving an ATV on Avshalom Feinberg Street in Beer Sheva as part of his work, when suddenly a passing vehicle hit him hard from the left.
As a result of the accident, the ATV overturned, and S., who was thrown onto the road, suffered severe blows to all parts of his body. An ambulance was called to the scene and evacuated S. to Soroka Hospital, where he was diagnosed with injuries to his face and head. According to him, even after his release from the hospital, he continued to suffer from persistent headaches.
S. contacted attorney Michaela Demertz, who specializes in securing medical rights for victims of work accidents, who submitted a request to the National Insurance Institute to recognize the incident as a work accident - a request that was accepted.
As a result of the accident, S. received injury benefits from the National Insurance Institute, and was later determined to be temporarily disabled. In July 2025, he appeared before a medical committee that was required to determine his permanent disability following the accident.
Attorney Michaela Demertz claimed before the committee that S. continues to suffer from constant headaches, which worsen at night, that he has gone to emergency rooms several times, and that he is receiving medication. According to her, following the accident, he did not return to work.
The committee recognized the causal connection between the work accident and the headaches, but nevertheless determined that S. did not remain disabled due to them.
As of August 2025, his disability for the headaches was set at 0%. The committee left him with a permanent disability of only 5%, due to the scar left on his face, a disability that does not entitle him to benefits from the National Insurance Institute.
According to Attorney Demertz, the medical committee's determination is outrageous, given the fact that S. continued to complain of pain, has been under neurological monitoring since the accident, and has been prescribed specific medication for headaches.
At the same time, Attorney Demertz filed a claim for a general disability pension on S.'s behalf. In July 2026, S. appeared before another neurological medical committee of the National Insurance Institute in Be'er Sheva, this time within the framework of the general disability track.
Before this committee, S. also described constant headaches and presented documentation of neurological monitoring and drug treatment. In addition, the committee was presented with additional disabilities from which S. suffers, due to his diabetes and his mental condition, disabilities that had been recognized earlier by the National Insurance Institute, and for which a weighted disability of approximately 50% was determined.
In contrast to the committee in the work accident proceeding, the General Disability Committee determined that S. suffers from chronic headaches, without determining their source. This was based on the medical examination he underwent and the medication he received. The committee determined that he had permanent medical disability at a rate of 15% for the headaches, which was added to his previous disabilities.
This creates an absurd situation in which, at the same branch, one committee of the National Insurance Institute determines that chronic headaches do not confer any disability, while a parallel committee determines a significant degree of permanent disability due to the same pain.
According to Attorney Demertz, despite this, it is the same head injury and the same set of medical complaints, and the gap between the two determinations is unreasonable.
Following the procedure, S. was approved for a general disability pension. In addition, retroactive entitlement was calculated for the period between August 2025 and July 2026, in a total amount of NIS 48,332 after linkage. The National Insurance Institute announced that the payment, in whole or in part, is being withheld in order to examine its impact on the income support benefit and parallel rights he received during the overlapping period.
Attorney Demertz is currently working on filing an appeal against the medical committee's decision regarding the work accident, with the goal of comparing the disability percentages between the two committees, and arguing again, as she argued in the original proceeding, for the application of Regulation 15, which may increase S.'s disability percentage by up to 501%, if it is found that the medical disability from which he suffers, which was caused by the work accident, significantly impairs his functional ability.
