Natan Ron

Attorney Ron is one of Israel's senior attorneys in the field of torts, with over three decades of experience representing clients in challenging cases before various courts, including the Supreme Court.

Attorney Ron's numerous successes in representing his clients stem from the extensive knowledge he has accumulated in the fields of torts, medical malpractice, and insurance, and from his broad perspective, which enables him to assess with maximum precision the chances of success of every case brought to him. Thanks to his expertise and professionalism, Attorney Ron's clients receive exceptionally high compensation rates, sometimes reaching millions of shekels.

Out of a desire to assist in advancing the profession and maintaining its quality, Attorney Ron lectures on medical malpractice at professional conferences and at the Israel Bar Association, where he has taught courses on the subject. In addition to his professional work, Attorney Ron volunteered as a member of the executive committee and chairman of the finance committee of the National Council for the Child, and served as a battalion commander with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel (Res.) in an armored division.

Experience

Among the prominent cases he has handled are the following:

• Eliyahu Ashkenazi v. Clalit Health Services – A landmark verdict issued regarding the responsibility of doctor and patient. The case reached the Supreme Court, which ruled that a patient who feels unwell and seeks medical advice is not required to obtain a second opinion, and if the initial advice was deficient – full responsibility lies with the doctor who provided that advice. The verdict addresses a core issue in the field of medical malpractice and outlines policy regarding the responsibility of doctor and patient.

• Limor Danino v. Hillel Yaffe Medical Center – A verdict that established a fundamental precedent in tort law, and in fact reversed a long-standing precedent. The verdict established the principle that if the patient's chance of recovery following medical treatment is greater than 51% – then the risk that existed from the outset in providing the treatment should not be deducted from the compensation. Prior to this verdict, the rule was that the value equivalent to the percentage of risk of treatment failure even without negligence should be deducted from the compensation due to a person who suffered from deficient medical treatment.

• Orit Cohen v. Hasneh – A precedent-setting case that dealt with aspects of procedural law in managing a tort case. The case revolved around the legal question of what constitutes "commencement of proceedings," and whether a case in which experts have been appointed but no court hearings have yet taken place is considered a case in which proceedings have already commenced or not. The case reached a further hearing in the Supreme Court, a stage that attests to the importance of the issue discussed in the case, and to the importance of the ruling in it.