Page 315 - 20818_park-B_efi

On the other hand, we can differentiate between the cases. In the mining the percentage of damage without a doctor’s opinion. If this
case presented to the Maharam, the husband was acting deceitfully, is the case, then the physician is obligated to reveal his rights to him.
so he had good reason to think that his wife would do the same. In On the other hand, it is possible that he himself could have consulted
the case of the apostate, he naively and foolishly thought it would be with another physician to assess the damages he sustained. Since he
wrong, as a Christian, to give her a bill of divorce. Thus he had no did not do so, perhaps he waived his rights and therefore we would
reason to think his wife would deceive him. According to this rea- have to remain silent.
soning we might say that he gave the divorce erroneously and it is not I asked my father-in-law, Rav Y. S. Elyashiv zt”l, this question. His
halachically valid. opinion was that the insurance company is obligated to the damaged
I asked my revered father-in-law, Rav Y. S. Elyashiv zt”l this ques- person as well as the damager. In exchange for payments it receives
tion. He said the Maharam Alsheich’s view is a novel one. Since there from the damager, the insurance company obligates itself to both of
is a real possibility that the bill of divorce is erroneous, how can one them. Since the disabled man is halachically considered the litigant,
allow this married woman to remarry? Perhaps in those days it was the insurance company becomes obligated to pay what is due him
more common to make a moda’ah in front of a beis din, stating that a for his disability. If his disability is halachically worth more, then the
person is being coerced and does not really mean what he or she says, insurance company is guilty of theft. Therefore, my father-in-law
and the husband should have thus made a condition that the kesubah ruled that the physician is obligated to reveal the information, just
be torn up, to insure himself against deception. Since the husband did like someone who knows testimony for the benefit of his fellow is
not do that, one can conclude that he did not care about forgoing the obligated to testify, as explained in the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen
kesubah. The Responsa Eitz Yitzchak (Even Haezer #36) disagrees with Mishpat #28:1).
Maharam Alsheich and treats the possibility of an erroneous bill of If the physician will definitely lose his livelihood as a result, he may
divorce very stringently. Therefore, in our case, my father-in-law zt”l be exempt from revealing the extent of the disability. As it states in
strongly opposed this possibility of falsifying medical information. Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat #264:1): “His lost object takes pre-
cedence over that of his friend and even of his father.” The Shulchan
1 Conclusion Aruch concludes, however, that “Even so, a person has to act above
and beyond the law and not be a a stickler for detail and say ‘mine is
A falsified statement by a physician is of no benefit, because it will be first’ if it does not involve an obvious loss.” And the same applies in
an erroneous get. our case.

1 SuMMaRy and Conclusions
1. The physician is obligated to tell the injured party that he is
entitled to more than he is asking.
2. If the physician may lose his job as a result, he is exempt from
disclosing this.
3. Even if he would certainly lose his job the physician should try,
if he can, to get the information to the injured party clandes-
tinely.

288 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein Informing someone that he is entitled to compensation 2 309 # 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 10 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Magenta 20818_efi-

# 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 10 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR: