This page is intended for law firms and others who commission ophthalmic opinions. It sets out what can be commissioned, what material is needed, and which points prove decisive specifically in vision files.
For the routes themselves see Ophthalmic Opinion for Bituach Leumi, Ophthalmic Opinion for the Ministry of Defence and Ophthalmic Opinion in Civil Damages Claims; for general background see Expert Medical Opinion in Ophthalmology.
What can be commissioned
Preliminary review. A short examination of the material before deciding on an opinion: whether the documentation supports the finding asserted, whether the examinations are reliable, and which clause is relevant. A separate stage, intended to prevent an opinion being commissioned in a file whose documentation will not carry it.
A full opinion. Examination, analysis of the material, and mapping of the findings to the correct clause — in the language of the disability tests rather than the language of a visit summary.
Review of an existing opinion. A critical reading of an opinion already filed, including identification of gaps between the finding and the clause chosen, and between the examinations and the conclusion.
Court appointment. Appointment as an expert in ophthalmology.
The material that makes assessment possible
- Best corrected visual acuity, preferably from more than one date.
- Visual field tests, including the reliability indices and not only the final printout.
- Corneal imaging: photography, topography, and a located description of the scar and its relation to the visual axis.
- Records from the event itself: emergency room, unit log, clinic — so far as they exist.
- Documents recording the state before the event, where the distinction between a pre-existing condition and new damage is relevant.
Where eye files break
Five points recur in almost every file examined:
- Acuity recorded without best correction. The clause 52 table refers to acuity with the best available optical correction; a measurement taken without it distorts the picture in both directions.
- An unreliable visual field. The most common weak point, and the first that will be attacked.
- A clause chosen unnecessarily. For instance rating the same scar twice — once as an opacity and once as reduced vision.
- Weighting errors. Percentages are not added but weighted from the remainder; this is where most of the arithmetic errors accumulate.
- A single examination instead of a sequence. One snapshot does not demonstrate stability.
How the work is done
The timetable is given in advance after an initial review of the material. Examinations take place in Haifa and Herzliya by prior appointment. An opinion is written on the assumption that it will be tested, so every statement in it is traceable back to a document or an examination; attendance for cross-examination is possible by prior arrangement.
The method of examination is identical in every file and does not depend on who commissions it. There is no undertaking as to a particular conclusion or as to the outcome of the proceeding.
How to make contact
No full file is needed at first contact — a short description of the mechanism of injury, the proceeding and the stage it has reached is enough to check suitability.
Get in touch to check suitability for an assessment
Frequently asked questions
What kinds of cases are these?
Ocular trauma, foreign body, chemical or thermal burn, corneal scar and damage following occupational exposure — in the statutory disability routes before National Insurance and the Rehabilitation Department of the Ministry of Defence, and in civil proceedings. Also critical review of an existing opinion and appointment as an expert by the court.
What should be sent at first contact?
Not a full file. A short description of the mechanism of injury, its date, the proceeding and the stage it has reached, plus the current visual finding if available. That is enough to say whether the case fits an assessment within the field of expertise and which examinations are missing. The full material is sent only once it is clear there is something to examine.
Is a preliminary review available before commissioning a full opinion?
Yes. A preliminary review examines three questions: whether the documentation supports the finding asserted, whether the examinations are sufficiently reliable, and which clause of the disability tests is relevant. It is a separate stage and not a substitute for an opinion. Where the documentation does not support the conclusion, it is better to know before an opinion is commissioned.
Is critical review of an existing opinion available?
Yes. The review concentrates on the points at which ophthalmic opinions break: whether the finding fits the clause chosen, the reliability of the visual field tests, acuity recorded without best correction, application of the weighting and ceiling rules, and reliance on a single examination rather than a sequence. The review is carried out for either side.
Does the expert attend for cross-examination?
Yes, by prior arrangement, where the proceeding requires it. An opinion is written from the outset on the assumption that it will be tested — every statement in it is traceable back to a document or an examination.
What is the timetable?
The timetable is given in advance after an initial review of the material, and depends on the size of the file and on whether a further examination is needed. Examinations take place in Haifa and Herzliya by prior appointment. There is no undertaking as to a particular conclusion or as to the outcome of the proceeding.