• Business

• Accountability

Suffered a heart attack two weeks after he was fired.

Is he entitled to compensation?

Precedent ruling: The Regional Labor Court and the National Insurance Institute refused to recognize, but after 3 appeals to the National Labor Court and a petition to the High Court - the decision was reversed

Tags

• Heart Attack

David Rosenthal

Thursday, February 25, 2021, 11:00 p.m.

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments

When M., an engineer at the Electric Company, was shamefully removed from the company's offices in Jerusalem after 25 years of work, he did not imagine that his case would be clarified before 3 different courts, in seven separate proceedings, at the end of which the National Court would determine a new and important rule.

The Jerusalem Regional Labor Court recently accepted the claim of a former IEC employee, and ruled that he had undergone an unusual incident at work, after in two previous rulings he dismissed the claim.

The employee was represented by Adv. Itamar Cohen from the law firm of Adv. Cohen Mack.

More on Walla!

NEWS

Credit belongs to the young: Get to know the trend that is conquering the world

To the full article

Court ruling: The incident can be recognized even after the employee has finished his work (Photo: ShutterStock)

The employee (57) was forced to retire early after 25 years.

About two weeks after signing the retirement agreement, he returned to the company offices, to pick up his belongings, sign forms, return the employee card and say goodbye to his co-workers.

At the same time, his supervisor called him to go to his room, and warned the employee not to dare to engage in his new job on issues related to the IEC.

A heated argument broke out between the two, during which the former employee threatened to call security personnel in order to remove him from the scene.

The next day, after morning training, the employee had a heart attack.

In the lawsuit filed by the employee with the National Insurance Institute (National Insurance Institute), to recognize the incident as a work accident, his attorney, Adv. Itamar Cohen, argued that the argument with the supervisor was an unusual event that caused the employee to have myocardial infarction.

The National Insurance Institute claimed, on the other hand, that at the time of the argument the plaintiff no longer worked for the company, and therefore the incident could not be a work accident. Adv. Cohen filed a lawsuit on his behalf with the Jerusalem Regional Labor Court, which serves as an appellate court.

However, his claim was also rejected.

"It is similar to a pensioner who comes to work to take a holiday gift, or examine the amount of pension he receives, or sign forms regarding the amount of the pension. An accident that happens to him will not be considered a work accident, since he is not working at the time," the first ruling said. Regional Labor Court.

The employee did not say desperate, and appealed to the National Labor Court.

The National Court, with the consent of the parties, ordered that the hearing be returned to the Regional Labor Court for the purpose of completing evidence.

Supplementary hearing Advocate Cohen argued that the debate with the Commissioner was a direct continuation of the relationship that the worker received from his superiors during their working years, so do not disconnect the connection between the murky relationship between them and the dispute broke out after the completion of the work.

But Judge Eyal Avrahami, President The Jerusalem Regional Labor Court, once again dismissed the claim and ruled that in accordance with the National Insurance Law, in order for an accident to be recognized as a work accident, the insured must be an employee, and the accident must occur during his work or due to work.

Advocate Cohen filed another appeal to the National Labor Court, arguing, among other things, that the ruling was given in a lack of composition and without public representatives and therefore the case was returned to the Regional Labor Court.

After the case was repeated for the third time, President Avrahami accepted the plaintiff's claims. The argument between him and his supervisor was to humiliate and humiliate him. "The plaintiff left the department and the electricity company where he worked for about 25 years, abruptly," the judge ruled, "he was summoned to complete the retirement process ... but it was natural that on that occasion he came to take His belongings left in the ward will be used to say goodbye to the people and the place where he worked all those years. "

In addition, the judge ruled that the employee's meeting with his supervisor took place in the ward where he worked and that the argument between the two was heated. In a threatening position, the commissioner demanded that the plaintiff leave, and even threatened to call the security personnel to remove him from his room. "This description seems to indicate the intensity and sharpness of the argument," the judge ruled. "The plaintiff eventually came humiliated and defeated from the workplace where he worked for 25 years.

The heart attack occurred the next morning, about 16 days after the date recorded as the date of termination of his employment. "

Did not say desperate.

Adv. Itamar Cohen (Photo: Eugene Weisberg)

The judge rejected the NSC's contention that the conversation between the employee and his supervisor was not related to the dismissal process. "We hold that the dispute between the plaintiff and his supervisor was clearly related to his work and termination of employment," the ruling said. Completion of his work - processes in the personnel department, collecting his belongings and saying goodbye to his friends in the department. This is therefore a clear connection to his work, and it can even be said that it was done during his work, since he came to complete the processes of finishing his work. It should be remembered that the heart attack happened to him the next day, when he arrived at his house humiliated and defeated, and went to sleep. "The

judge therefore accepted the employee's claims, and ruled that the argument should be considered an unusual event and a heart attack. medical causation between the exceptional event and the event hearty. the judge also added that the verdict is an opportunity to correct an error earlier verdict of the judge himself. "judiciously things again, believes the court, that previous judgments had been a mistake," declared.

about This decision was filed a third appeal to the National Court, this time of the National Insurance Institute. The third appeal was rejected by a majority of opinions. The National Court ruled that "It is justified to see the respondent as insured in the work injury industry, also considering the time that has elapsed since the date of termination of employment."

In these short words, the court actually recognizes for the first time a work injury victim who has terminated the employment relationship, thus establishing a new rule. Until this determination, the national court agreed only theoretically to recognize an employee injured after the employment relationship ended, but in practice In the National Labor Court were dismissed. However, the National Insurance Institute did not say it was desperate, and filed a petition in the Supreme Court on Saturday as the High Court against the National Court. However, the petition was rejected after Adv. Itamar Cohen's answer was received. The Supreme Court refused to intervene in the judgment of the National Court.

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments