The neurologist from Ashkelon was also convicted of indecent acts on the same complainant • According to the doctor, it was a relationship with full consent • The judges rejected his version
The doctor was convicted of indecent acts on the patient
Photography:
GettyImages / Illustration
Permitted for publication: The case
of Dr. Lior Wolczek, a resident of Ashkelon and a neurologist at the Maccabi Health Fund in the south, was decided for sexual offenses committed by a patient. Of three judges in the Beersheba District Court convicted the doctor of two offenses of sodomy and the offense of indecent acts on the patient.Their sentence will be determined at a different time in the sentence.
According to the indictment, on June 25, 2018, the 27-year-old complainant came to Dr. Wolczak's clinic due to back pain following a car accident. Book an appointment for further examination, and so did the complainant.
About a month and a half later the complainant came to the clinic again.
During this test, Dr. Wolczak ordered the complainant to take off his pants and touched him again in intimate areas and on his back. The doctor asked the young man to go to another clinic where he works, where tests are performed with special equipment that allows an accurate diagnosis. There, the doctor ordered him to take off his pants and lie on his stomach in the treatment bed. In the same examination according to the indictment, the neurologist performed an act of sodomy on the complainant.
About two months later the patient came to the doctor again and complained that his back pain was getting worse.
In the same examination, the defendant committed another act of sodomy and indecent acts on the patient.
It should be noted that according to the indictment, the actions of the accused were recorded by the complainant on a hidden camera he brought with him for examination, and the video was submitted as key evidence.
"Defendant's testimony left an unreliable impression"
In response to the indictment, the doctor denied the offenses attributed to him, claiming that he and the complainant had a sexual relationship with full consent.
He further claimed that he made the mistake of his life by "flowing with the sexual situation between him and the complainant".
The judges ruled that "the defendant's testimony left a clearly unreliable impression. His testimony was riddled with many lies, contradictions and perplexities. The various versions given by the defendant during the interrogation also suffer from irrationality and internal contradictions. He insisted on his version during a difficult cross-examination. "
Subsequently, the defendant's version was completely rejected and he was convicted.
