Court Orders Review of Hearing Claims for Police Officers Exposed to Combat Noise
The Haifa Magistrate's Court ruled that two police officers exposed to heavy combat noise in Karmiel and Katzrin must have their hearing impairment claims reviewed by the Ministry of Defense.
The Haifa Magistrate's Court Appeals Committee has upheld appeals filed by two police officers whose preliminary claims for hearing impairment and tinnitus resulting from operational service were dismissed by the Ministry of Defense. The court ruled that their exposure to combat noise stems from their duties as field patrol officers, ordering the Rehabilitation Division to review their medical claims.
The two officers served as patrolmen in the police stations of Karmiel and Katzrin. In 2025, they filed claims for tinnitus and hearing loss, which they stated were caused by exposure to noise since the outbreak of the Iron Swords war. One of the officers had already been recognized in 2013 for hearing impairment caused by exposure to weaponry and requested recognition for an aggravation of his disability due to his service.
Combat Exposure and Lack of Protection
In his affidavit, the Karmiel patrolman stated that he was dispatched to dozens of missile and drone impact sites launched by Hezbollah. According to his testimony, during travel and at the scenes, he was also exposed to the firing of Iron Dome batteries and artillery. He was frequently forced to lie on the ground near his vehicle or in the open field without any protective gear. About a month and a half later, he consulted a physician due to worsening hearing and ringing in his ears. The Katzrin police officer provided a similar account.
In their appeal, the two argued that the exposure resulted directly from their service, meaning there was no justification for dismissing their claims outright. They claimed they were discriminated against compared to other police officers whose similar claims had been recognized. Conversely, the Rehabilitation Authority argued that the noise was experienced by all residents of the area, including public transport drivers and emergency vehicle drivers who were exposed to the exact same sounds. Therefore, the authority contended, the officers' exposure was not unique to their service and they merely acted as passive observers rather than operators of the weaponry.
Court Ruling and Legal Significance
The committee emphasized that police patrol duties require frequenting impact zones and staying in open areas without shelter, creating an exposure profile fundamentally different from that of an ordinary civilian or a transit driver.
Head of the committee, Judge Amir Salama, explained that Amendment 29 to the Invalids Law restricted eligibility for career service personnel, requiring that hearing impairment stemming from weaponry exposure occur under circumstances or conditions unique to the service. However, the committee concluded that the officers' duties required them to repeatedly approach impact sites and remain in open areas, often close to detonations and without access to protected spaces.
Ultimately, the dismissal decisions were overturned. Because the Rehabilitation Authority accepted the factual descriptions in the affidavits, the case was returned to it to determine whether the officers suffer from hearing impairments or aggravation resulting from the described exposure. The authority was also ordered to pay each officer 5,000 shekels in legal fees.
