A man who underwent a botched spinal surgery will receive about NIS 2.5 million in damages and expenses from Al-Makassed Hospital in East Jerusalem, according to a recent ruling by the city’s District Court. Judge Miriam Lifshitz-Privas found that serious errors occurred during the procedure and the subsequent hospitalizations, deviating from accepted medical practice and leaving the man permanently unable to work.
Before the operation, the 48-year-old plaintiff worked at a concrete factory. In 2017, he began suffering from back pain radiating to his right leg, and an MRI revealed a herniated disc. Shortly afterward, he underwent the surgery at the center of the case. When the pain persisted, he was hospitalized four more times.
In his lawsuit, filed in October 2022, the man claimed the surgery was performed negligently, leaving him with severe walking difficulties and chronic pain in his head, ears, legs, and back. He also alleged urinary problems and impotence, adding that his wife had left for abroad because of his disabilities, leaving him to care for their eight children alone.
The hospital denied any negligence, arguing that staff treated the patient carefully and according to accepted medical standards during the operation, testing, and follow-up care. The defense maintained that his symptoms stemmed from preexisting conditions unrelated to the surgery. However, Judge Lifshitz-Privas ruled the procedure had indeed been negligent. She determined the surgeons failed to fully remove the damaged disc, causing nerve compression and irreversible neurological harm. In addition, the surgery caused a tear in the spinal membrane (the dura), which led to cerebrospinal fluid leakage. The judge noted that the leak could have been prevented had the tear been properly repaired.
Attorney Arie HagagPhoto: Tomer ShalomOn the issue of damages, the court accepted the plaintiff’s claims of significant disability resulting from the surgery, including walking difficulties, instability while standing, and partial urinary incontinence. It concluded he had lost his full ability to work.
At the same time, the court rejected his claims of impotence and marital breakdown due to the operation. “I am not convinced that his wife left him and their children solely because of his disabilities,” the judge wrote, noting that no evidence was presented about the official grounds for the separation and none of the children testified about the couple’s relationship before the surgery.