Important Road Accident Damages Ruling: The Flawed Double Deduction of Prior Disability

By: Attorney Michael Lev

Significant Road Accident Damages Ruling: The Phenomenon of Flawed Double Deduction of Prior Disability

The Supreme Court recently issued a significant ruling in the field of road accidents, dealing with the calculation of compensation for someone injured in an accident who suffers from prior disability. In the ruling, which was deliberated with the participation of Justices Y. Amit, Y. Willner and G. Canfy-Steinitz, fundamental questions arose concerning the manner of calculating disability and the level of appropriate compensation.

In our daily work at the firm, we encounter similar cases with high frequency. This ruling serves as living precedent with direct practical implications for road accident victims who have prior disability for various reasons.

The Legal Background and Facts That Led to the Dispute

The appellant in this case is a driver who was injured in two road accidents during a motorcycle journey. Before these accidents, he suffered from prior disability at a rate of 20%, which was the result of injuries he sustained during his military service.

In the initial assessment, the court determined that the weighted medical disability stands at 44%, while the functional disability was defined at 16%. The initial assessment adopted a critically flawed approach: it deducted the prior disability both from the medical disability and from the functional disability, something that led to the appellant arriving at an inflated level of deduction.

The Supreme Court’s Correction: The Double Deduction

The Supreme Court pointed out a fundamental flaw in the initial assessment’s approach. As stated in the ruling: “It appears that the court deducted the appellant’s prior disability on two separate occasions regarding the prior disability.” The essential problem was this: the medical experts had already taken the prior disability into account when they set the disability rate resulting from the accident, and therefore there was no justification for an additional deduction.

At our firm, we seriously address situations in which prior disability is deducted twice — once by the courts and once by insurance companies. The basic principle that must be understood is simple: when medical experts set the disability rate following the accident, they have already weighted the pre-existing medical condition of the injured person.

The Supreme Court’s Correction and Its Implications

The Supreme Court corrected the appeal and determined that the weighted medical disability should stand at 55% and not at 44%. Similarly, the court identified a worrying gap between the medical disability (55%) and the functional disability determined in the initial assessment (16%), and indicated the need to raise it to a rate of 30%.

The correction regarding functional disability was of significant overall economic significance, since functional disability directly influences the calculation of future lost wages. When the functional disability rose from 16% to 30%, the effect on the rest of the compensation was significantly greater. Every increase in the functional disability rate reflects a growth in the assessment of the effect on the injured person’s future income.

In addition to these changes, the court dealt with the matter of the National Insurance allowance the appellant received. Since the appellant was entitled to special services allowances, he did not apply the “going to the grave rule,” and his National Insurance allowance was properly deducted from the compensation in full.

The Legal Principles That Emerged from the Ruling

The ruling reinforces several non-negotiable principles in road accident law. First, it is forbidden to apply double deduction of prior disability — neither from the medical disability nor from the functional disability separately. This principle is designed to protect road accident victims with a complex medical history.

Second, the assessment of functional disability is found in the authority of the judicial evaluation in the case. The Supreme Court determined that when there is a noticeable gap between the medical disability and the functional disability determined in the initial assessment, it is right to examine the gap carefully and possibly correct the functional disability upward.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does prior disability affect the amount of compensation in a road accident?

Yes, but correctly. Medical experts are required to take prior disability into account when they assess the disability resulting from the accident. This happens once only. It is forbidden to return to the deduction at the stage of setting the compensation.

What is the difference between medical disability and functional disability?

Medical disability describes the nature and severity of the medical injury alone. Functional disability reflects the actual practical effect on the person’s ability to function in daily life and work. Between the two there can be a significant difference.

When is it possible to raise the functional disability beyond the medical disability?

When a noticeable gap exists between the medical disability and the functional disability, the court may weigh raising the functional disability in order to better reflect the actual effect on the injured person’s earning capacity.

How do we deal with a National Insurance deduction from compensation?

In general, National Insurance allowances that the injured person received are deducted from the compensation. However, there are specific cases, such as special services allowances, in which the deduction is full and is not subject to the “going to the grave rule.”

This ruling shows how important professional legal representation and well-established legal cases in road accident cases are, particularly in complex cases involving prior disability or various medical circumstances. At our firm, we handle cases of this type and do everything required so that our clients receive all the compensation they deserve by law.

For a free consultation with no obligation, contact us now

The above does not constitute legal advice. For specific advice for your situation, contact our firm.