Labor Court Rejects Compensation Claim for Shooting Victim
Translated & summarized from Cursorinfo by baba
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Labor court denied compensation claim for shooting victim.
- Claim was rejected due to missed filing deadline.
- Insufficient evidence linked shooting to claimant's work.
- Claimant failed to provide medical proof for late filing.
- Key witnesses did not testify in the case.
A Tel Aviv labor court has dismissed a claim by a self-employed individual seeking compensation for a shooting incident, ruling that the claim was filed too late and lacked sufficient evidence to link the attack to his work. The claimant stated he was shot outside his home after a workday while unloading tools from his car, following an air conditioner installation. The National Insurance Institute (Bituah Leumi) initially denied his claim in August 2023, a decision that was upheld after a review in January 2024. The claimant filed his lawsuit with the labor court on November 12, 2024. The court determined that the deadline for filing the suit should be calculated from the date of the first denial letter, and a request for review did not reset this deadline. The court also rejected the claimant's argument that his health prevented him from filing on time, as he provided no medical documentation to support this or requested an extension. Furthermore, the court found insufficient evidence to prove the shooting was work-related. While police reports confirmed the shooting occurred at the claimant's home entrance, the court stated this was not enough to establish it happened after a workday and was connected to his employment. Discrepancies were noted in the claimant's account of the air conditioner installation date, and the invoice for the unit was dated July 4, 2022, while a related invoice from the claimant to his accountant was dated on the day of the shooting but appeared out of sequence. Key witnesses, including the claimant's accountant and parents, did not testify. Ultimately, the claim was denied due to the expired filing deadline and the failure to prove a connection between the shooting and his professional activities. The court did not order the claimant to pay legal costs.
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Other 2