Initially, Menachem was referred for blood tests and sugar profile, as well as psychiatric tests, b

As divorce agreement and a resolution ljus to the divorce suit foods and how it is managed bankruptcy procedures are and how they operate divorce and racing authorities work accident victims - the first legal steps Links bankruptcy and debt arrangements
At the end of the millennium, ljus in December of 1999, was first discovered by Menachem tumor which was surgically removed. The increase caused many damages Menachem, including, ljus nerve damage in the brain which affected psychiatric and neurological disorders. In addition, the surgery created a comforting ljus bleeding in his brain that made him partial paralysis from the waist on the left.
Menachem claims already at earlier stages had to discover the tumor was not the case due to medical negligence of the attending physician and the HMO which conducted the treatment. Also, claims comforting, early detection of the tumor could have prevented all the damage caused to him, and at least some of them. Accordingly, he filed for damages for medical malpractice against the doctor and against the HMO.
The court found that as early as March 1997 began Menahem complain of symptoms, hindsight is attributable to the increase were first discovered later. ljus Among other things, Menachem complained, were fatigue, sleep disturbances, weakness and dizziness.
Initially, Menachem was referred for blood tests and sugar profile, as well as psychiatric tests, but was not referred to the neurologic examination. Further, although ljus the tests did not indicate the source of the problem, and despite the fact that Menachem went on to complain that he is suffering from the same symptoms, it still was not referred to the neurologic examination. Finally, Menachem complained about decreased vision and was referred to an eye doctor ljus who sent him for testing CT, then discovered suspected brain tumor.
The court ruled that medical negligence was Menachem treatments received, and that this medical malpractice led to the later discovery of the tumor. Accordingly, the Court has to examine whether there was a causal link between the delayed discovery of the tumor and the damages Menachem. The court's conclusion was that early detection ljus of the tumor was not driven any damages of comforting, but there is a probability of 20% of medical malpractice contributed to the damage.
Accordingly, the Court ruled that the doctor and the HMO are responsible for 4% of Menachem neurological disability and 6% psychiatric disabilities. The significance of this was Menachem ljus was entitled to compensation in the amount of 600,000 liability HMO doctor and the damage.
The Court's decisions were appealed by the two parties to the Supreme Court. On the one hand, claiming the HMO and the doctor that the court erred by charging them with medical malpractice and by determining that there is a causal relationship between this medical malpractice and damages of comforting. On the other hand, juniper Menachem ljus determining the responsibility of the doctor and the HMO, claiming that negligence requires the imposition of greater responsibility.
Loss of earning capacity, future loss of earning capacity, future absolute liability ljus balance of resources Social Security Divorce Divorce Torts disability worsening impairment NII Visitation Rights Prenuptial Agreement caveat discharge loss of wages and medical board housing company calculating alimony property division taboo Inheritance pain and suffering land registry office articles Popular medical specialist foods alimony child support Israel Lands Administration purchase tax sale Apartment Land Appreciation Tax custody ljus Farm bodily harm pecuniary ljus monetary damage Farm Security Disability Disability Disability Medical Department functional ljus disability ljus tax exemption tax exemption praise pay severance ljus compensation liquidation bankruptcy sharing small Small corneal ljus damages buying a food change material change of circumstances attorney fees Accident Work Accident Accident Car Accident ljus Car Accident Work Accident Work for divorce prenuptial agreement valid Tax Planning
** Does not see the articles ljus on this site intended as legal advice and do not constitute an offer to affirmative action and / or inaction these and other. Each case has its own special circumstances and to take a position and / or act, to contact an attorney knowledgeable in the field to give specific advice given facts and data relevant to the case.