The Tel Aviv District Court is currently hearing an unusual medical malpractice lawsuit seeking 7.3 million shekels (around 2.5 million dollars), in which a mother and her son allege that a gynecologist used the wrong sperm during an insemination procedure performed 34 years ago. The doctor, now 96 and suffering from advanced dementia, is also involved in a separate proceeding in which the Family Court in Tel Aviv rejected a request by the plaintiffs to cancel the appointment of his relatives as guardians, amid concerns they would act to secure the inheritance.
The malpractice claim was filed in the district court last February. According to the petition, in the early 1990s a Muslim couple approached the doctor, an obstetrics and gynecology specialist, seeking to conceive through artificial insemination. The treatment succeeded and their son was born in August 1992.
1 View gallery
A gynecologist used the wrong sperm during an insemination procedure performed 34 years ago
(Photo: shutterstock)
However, a genetic test conducted by the son at age 29 revealed that the man who raised him, now deceased, was not his biological father and that the pregnancy was achieved using sperm from a Jewish donor.
Days after the lawsuit was filed, the doctor’s two children and his wife petitioned to be appointed guardians over all his affairs due to his advanced dementia. The Tel Aviv Family Court accepted the request and issued a permanent order appointing them as responsible for his personal, medical and financial affairs.
In response, the mother and son in the tort case petitioned to cancel the guardianship order or alternatively to appoint an external guardian for the gynecologist. They expressed concern that the doctor’s wife and children, in their role as guardians, would act to preserve the estate in light of the lawsuit filed against him.
They also argued that the medical document underlying the guardianship request contained false information and that they should be considered an “interested party” under the Legal Capacity and Guardianship Law and therefore entitled to object to the appointment.
However, Judge Tomer Shalem of the Family Court rejected their petition, explaining that a request to cancel a guardianship appointment or to appoint a neutral guardian cannot be filed by a third party who does not meet the legal definition of a “relative,” meaning someone with a blood or marital connection such as a spouse or child, as opposed to outsiders like the applicants.
He also dismissed the claim that the mother and son could be considered an “interested party” under the law. He noted they would need to show that appointing the doctor’s wife and children could harm his interests, whereas their concern was primarily personal, tied to their own lawsuit.
“The concerns of the ward are of no interest to the applicants whatsoever,” he wrote, adding that their main concern was that the estate would not be depleted and that they might face difficulty enforcing a future judgment in their favor, if granted.
He further noted that the applicants used the wrong legal procedure, stating that if they seek to prevent asset dissipation they must file an appropriate motion for an injunction in the court handling the main lawsuit.
Another reason for rejecting the petition was the serious violation of the doctor’s privacy that would result from granting the applicants standing, effectively giving them access to proceedings under a publication ban.
• The article is produced in cooperation with the PsakDin, Legal Sites Ltd.
• Counsel for the applicants: Adv. Ayelet Sabag
• Counsel for the respondents: Adv. Eitan Haezrachy and others
• Attorney Tlalit Broitman specializes in medical malpractice
• The author did not represent any party in the case
• The PsakDin editorial team contributed to this article
• ynet is a partner of PsakDin, Legal Sites Ltd.