A resident of Jerusalem, aged 63, recognized by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services as a homeless person, has been living since 1991 on the street and in various temporary lodgings in Jerusalem arranged for by business owners for whom he worked. Currently he is living in a city shelter for the homeless, and is working in an East Jerusalem bakery. In 2005, without being notified, his residency was revoked retroactively as of 1977; and as a result he lost his entitlement to health insurance from the National Insurance Institute (NII). For the past 20 years he has been an addict of hard drugs, and in consequence, served several criminal prison terms. He also suffers from various chronic medical problems, for which he was hospitalized in several medical establishments between 2007 and 2009.
In December 2009, he applied to the NII requesting to renew his health insurance, and was answered that the matter was under review. In view of the circumstances, and the delay of the NII reply, HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual
filed a claim to the National Labor Court regarding the revocation of his residency and his entitlement to the national health insurance. In the claim, HaMoked stated, inter alia, that the termination of the claimant's health insurance was apparently due to the absence of an address, as he had no permanent residence and kept moving from one rehabilitation hostel to the next.
That same day, in view of the claimant's severe health condition, HaMoked
filed for an interim order directing the NII to renew his health insurance pending a decision in his case. The order was issued and his health insurance was renewed. In April, he was admitted to Hadassah Mount Scopus hospital in Jerusalem, where he received initial treatment with a recommendation to undergo surgery at the earliest opportunity. Nonetheless, the hospital refused to continue treatment and perform the operation, due to a past debt.
HaMoked appealed to the hospital, claiming that to make an operation conditional to a settlement of a past debt is unlawful and a violation of patients’ rights. The hospital dismissed the claims entirely; HaMoked was thereby compelled to appeal to the legal advisor of the Ministry of Health, who established that the hospital's refusal to provide medical treatment payment for which is guaranteed by a health fund, was unjust;
he also contacted the hospital to settle the matter. Following this, the hospital announced it had decided ex gratia to grant the request and perform the operation.
