The Tel Aviv District Court has rejected a request to dismiss a lawsuit by a 75-year-old man who claims he suffered permanent eye damage during a dental procedure.
The court ruled that the plaintiff, who alleged he signed a waiver under duress, could return the refunded money and continue with his medical negligence case.
The man, who underwent dental treatments between 2015 and 2017, claims the dentist's negligence caused irreversible damage to his eye socket, resulting in a permanent disability and significant rehabilitation costs. He alleges that the dentist drilled into his upper jaw without consulting a maxillofacial specialist or warning him of potential risks. Subsequent alternative treatments reportedly failed, leaving him reliant on another clinic for corrective care.
The dentist refunded $37,000—the cost of the procedures—on the condition that the patient sign a waiver relinquishing his right to sue. The plaintiff argued that he signed the waiver while in severe pain and under financial pressure to fund further treatments. He also claimed the refund did not cover the damages caused, asserting that the dentist exploited his vulnerable state.
Get the Ynetnews app on your smartphone: Google Play: https://bit.ly/4eJ37pE | Apple App Store: https://bit.ly/3ZL7iNv
In his defense, the dentist denied all allegations of negligence and argued that the waiver was legally binding. He noted the patient had consulted a lawyer before signing and moved to dismiss the lawsuit, citing the signed agreement and the statute of limitations.
Judge Menachem (Mario) Klein, however, ruled that the waiver could not be considered an outright settlement agreement. “While there is a public interest in upholding settlements, the plaintiff’s claims about defects in the contract’s formation cannot be dismissed outright,” the judge said. He described the waiver as part of a standard refund procedure used by the clinic and criticized its use as a tool to block negligence claims.
“I am not certain that refunding money to block negligence claims for bodily harm is justifiable when, allegedly, there are additional damages beyond the refunded amount,” Judge Klein added. He also noted disputes regarding the relationship between the refund and the total amount paid by the plaintiff.
The judge ordered the patient to return the refunded $37,000 within 45 days to annul the agreement and proceed with the case. Failure to return the funds within the specified timeframe would result in the dismissal of the lawsuit.