Author: admin

The Supreme Court held that a court assessing injury compensation under Royal Decree 118/2008 must classify each injury on the basis of clear medical reports and state the basis for that classification, and must rely on specialist medical opinion rather than its own assessment. The court also restated its settled rule that pain is compensable only once it has persisted for six months, after which the amount is assessed as hukumat adl.

The Supreme Court held that pain is not compensable unless it amounts to an impairment lasting at least six months, which the court of merits must ascertain from the competent medical authority, and that the arsh for a woman’s injuries must be calculated on the basis of the diyah of a woman, not a man.

The Supreme Court held that a disability percentage is not compensable unless the injury caused a total or partial loss of utility of an organ, and that compensation for bodily injuries cannot be combined with compensation for a general disability percentage, as this results in double compensation.

The Supreme Court held that assessing the harm caused by an injury and determining the compensation that remedies it are matters of fact within the independent authority of the lower courts, and that it will not review such an assessment as long as it rests on sound and logically acceptable reasoning. A contestation that merely disputes the amounts awarded for individual injuries, without identifying a specific error in law, is a factual dispute that the Supreme Court will reject.