General
Landmark Ruling: The National Insurance Institute Will No Longer Choose the Doctors Who Decide on Your Disability Benefits
13.10.2026 · AUTIFACE
Every parent who has ever gone through a medical committee at the National Insurance Institute knows the feeling: the doctor sitting across from you determines the fate of your benefit, and it's never quite clear just how independent they really are. This week, the Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, ruled that this feeling was not unfounded.
The court accepted a petition against the National Insurance Institute and ruled that it must stop being involved in the appointment, promotion, and tenure extension of the doctors who serve as adjudicators on the medical committees. The ruling was handed down unanimously by Justice Yael Wilner, Deputy President Noam Sohlberg, and Justice Alex Stein, following a petition filed in 2021 by the Israeli Bar Association, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel's Patient Rights division, and the Israeli Melanoma and Skin Cancer Association.
The core question is simple: can a body that is in dispute with an insured person over a benefit be allowed to choose the doctors who will decide that dispute? The judges' answer was no. Under the law, the authority to appoint these doctors rests with the Minister of Labor - precisely to ensure that the committees remain independent.
The ruling revealed that in practice, under a procedure dating back to 2017, the NII's own medical bureau was screening candidates, interviewing them, deciding who was suitable, and even handling tenure extensions and promotions to appeals committees - partly based on performance scores given to doctors by figures within the Institute itself. A candidate rejected by the Institute never even reached the Minister. Justice Wilner found that under such a system, the Minister was essentially just signing appointment letters handed to him by the NII.
Even the new procedures the state formulated in 2024 and December 2025 failed to convince the court. The judges ruled that even under those procedures, it remained unclear who was exercising genuine independent judgment, and that they still allowed the NII to influence appointments through indirect means.
Why does this matter to us? The ruling explains that in areas such as general disability, special services, and children's disability benefits, the initial decision can be made by a doctor on behalf of the NII. But appeals are heard by a medical appeals committee, which is supposed to be fully independent. It is precisely there - where families are fighting over percentages and over their child's disability allowance - that this independence must be real.
It is important to emphasize: the court did not find that committee doctors acted unprofessionally or yielded to pressure, and Justice Wilner even noted that they carry out their roles with dedication. But in her words, independence cannot rest on personal integrity alone. The structure itself must prevent conflicts of interest and maintain public trust.
Given the practical complexity involved, the order will only take effect in 12 months, to allow the state time to prepare. The NII - and insured individuals - will still be able to pass their views to the Minister regarding the performance of specific doctors, but will not be able to participate in the appointment process itself. Deputy President Sohlberg wrote that this problem had been on the table for many years and that there was no longer any way to avoid an absolute order.
The court accepted a petition against the National Insurance Institute and ruled that it must stop being involved in the appointment, promotion, and tenure extension of the doctors who serve as adjudicators on the medical committees. The ruling was handed down unanimously by Justice Yael Wilner, Deputy President Noam Sohlberg, and Justice Alex Stein, following a petition filed in 2021 by the Israeli Bar Association, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel's Patient Rights division, and the Israeli Melanoma and Skin Cancer Association.
The core question is simple: can a body that is in dispute with an insured person over a benefit be allowed to choose the doctors who will decide that dispute? The judges' answer was no. Under the law, the authority to appoint these doctors rests with the Minister of Labor - precisely to ensure that the committees remain independent.
The ruling revealed that in practice, under a procedure dating back to 2017, the NII's own medical bureau was screening candidates, interviewing them, deciding who was suitable, and even handling tenure extensions and promotions to appeals committees - partly based on performance scores given to doctors by figures within the Institute itself. A candidate rejected by the Institute never even reached the Minister. Justice Wilner found that under such a system, the Minister was essentially just signing appointment letters handed to him by the NII.
Even the new procedures the state formulated in 2024 and December 2025 failed to convince the court. The judges ruled that even under those procedures, it remained unclear who was exercising genuine independent judgment, and that they still allowed the NII to influence appointments through indirect means.
Why does this matter to us? The ruling explains that in areas such as general disability, special services, and children's disability benefits, the initial decision can be made by a doctor on behalf of the NII. But appeals are heard by a medical appeals committee, which is supposed to be fully independent. It is precisely there - where families are fighting over percentages and over their child's disability allowance - that this independence must be real.
It is important to emphasize: the court did not find that committee doctors acted unprofessionally or yielded to pressure, and Justice Wilner even noted that they carry out their roles with dedication. But in her words, independence cannot rest on personal integrity alone. The structure itself must prevent conflicts of interest and maintain public trust.
Given the practical complexity involved, the order will only take effect in 12 months, to allow the state time to prepare. The NII - and insured individuals - will still be able to pass their views to the Minister regarding the performance of specific doctors, but will not be able to participate in the appointment process itself. Deputy President Sohlberg wrote that this problem had been on the table for many years and that there was no longer any way to avoid an absolute order.
What this means for you
What does this mean for your family:
In the immediate term, nothing changes. The committees continue to operate as usual, and the order only takes effect in a year's time.
Do not give up on filing an appeal. The initial decision on a child's disability benefit can be made within the NII itself, but appeals are heard by a committee that is supposed to be independent - and from now on, that commitment to independence has been established by court ruling.
Come to the committee prepared: bring up-to-date documents, reports from therapists and from your child's educational setting, and a detailed description of what a typical day with your child looks like. The committee decides based on what is placed in front of it.
Did you experience unprofessional treatment from a particular doctor? The court explicitly noted that insured individuals too can forward their concerns to the Minister. Document everything and put it in writing.
This is a victory for a principle that every family in our community feels in their bones: those who decide on our rights must be fair and independent. One petition, five years of legal proceedings, and a change that will touch hundreds of thousands of people. Share your experiences with committees in the comments - good and difficult alike. Those experiences are knowledge that helps families who have not yet faced their first committee.
In the immediate term, nothing changes. The committees continue to operate as usual, and the order only takes effect in a year's time.
Do not give up on filing an appeal. The initial decision on a child's disability benefit can be made within the NII itself, but appeals are heard by a committee that is supposed to be independent - and from now on, that commitment to independence has been established by court ruling.
Come to the committee prepared: bring up-to-date documents, reports from therapists and from your child's educational setting, and a detailed description of what a typical day with your child looks like. The committee decides based on what is placed in front of it.
Did you experience unprofessional treatment from a particular doctor? The court explicitly noted that insured individuals too can forward their concerns to the Minister. Document everything and put it in writing.
This is a victory for a principle that every family in our community feels in their bones: those who decide on our rights must be fair and independent. One petition, five years of legal proceedings, and a change that will touch hundreds of thousands of people. Share your experiences with committees in the comments - good and difficult alike. Those experiences are knowledge that helps families who have not yet faced their first committee.
Read also
Health Ministry Director General Admits: Wait Times for Child Development Services Won't Get Shorter - And in January, the Reform Reaches Children on the Spectrum
›
"Good Morning, You're Autistic": Why an Autism Diagnosis Can Come Only at Age 30
›
Diagnosed with autism only at 19, he is now one of those who kept the pilots safe on the way to Iran
›
