He’s nine years old. At home, he talks – with mom, with dad, with his grandparents on the phone. But the moment the door opens to the outside world, he shuts down. At school, he answers the teacher in one word, if at all. Doesn’t share what happened during the day. Doesn’t invite friends over. When he walks into an examination room – he walks in alone, sits quietly, doesn’t say a word. He looks anxious.
His psychiatrist summed it up simply: every new thing, every small change – he bursts into tears. Anything he hears that’s bad, he bursts into tears.
At home, his parents describe a daily struggle that never ends. The child doesn’t dress himself. Not because he physically can’t – but because something inside won’t let him. He looks at the clothes, and if no one comes to help, he simply stays as he is. At night, he won’t go to the bathroom without someone by his side. His parents told the committee one sentence that says it all: “The problem with clothing is more psychological than physical.”
The parents applied to National Insurance for a disabled child benefit. The medical appeals committee reviewed the case – and rejected it. Not on communication, not on supervision, not on dressing. On everything.
Through their attorney, Anat Rubio Kimelman, they filed an appeal with the Jerusalem Labor Court. The argument was straightforward: the committee didn’t truly look at our child.
Judge Esther Shachor reviewed everything, and found something peculiar. The committee itself wrote that the child displays “heightened anxiety and selective mutism requiring greater parental involvement” – then, in the same breath, ruled he wasn’t eligible. The Court asked the obvious question: if you yourself say greater involvement is needed, how do you conclude there’s no eligibility?
The committee also never compared his communication abilities to other children his age – exactly what the regulations require. It failed to properly address the medical documents before it. And when it heard that the difficulty with dressing was psychological rather than physical – it only examined the physical side and ignored the rest.
The appeal was accepted. The child’s case was sent back to the committee, which will now need to truly examine, truly address the documents, and explain itself in a way that can actually be followed.
Sometimes all a silent child needs is someone willing to speak loudly enough on his behalf.
Case No. 78334-09-25 | Jerusalem Regional Labor Court | Judge Esther Shachor | February 25, 2026 Appellant’s counsel: Adv. Anat Rubio Kimelman | National Insurance counsel: Adv. Arik Yaacovi