Dr. Peter Gross, a Jewish family physician in Pennsylvania, filed an appeal after he was ordered to pay $4.1 million in compensation. He did not attend the court session, because it was held on Yom Kippur (the Jewish Day of Atonement).
Dr. Gross claims that the lawsuit was filed in "bad faith,” and the decision was made in his absence, and without considering the fact that the court session was held on the holiest day for the Jewish people.
During the hearing, the jury found him guilty of allegedly causing harm to his former patient, when he failed to recognize that he was about to suffer a heart attack.
According to the indictment, the doctor asked to postpone the trial from September 2023, but the expert witness claimed that he could testify only on that day.
The two judges refused the doctor’s request, who did not show up to court, and ruled that he must pay a high compensation. He is now appealing the decision, explaining that he could not attend the hearing which was held on the Jewish Day of Atonement.
Agudath Israel of America, the American branch of the worldwide Agudat Israel movement, decided to intervene. In its claim to the court, Agudath Israel wrote that they are worried about the verdict, and that it may affect many Jews around the world.
Among others, the request states that "we cannot overstate the importance of observing Yom Kippur – the Day of Atonement, the holiest day of the year for the Jewish people. While courts do not make considerations based on the centrality of religious beliefs, a full understanding of the meaning of Yom Kippur amends any perception of the day as a compliant custom or tradition, instead of a religious obligation.”
For observant Jews, religious holidays and the Jewish Sabbath are not only important celebrations – they are days and times when, according to Jewish law, it is forbidden to engage in any kind of activity and work, including appearing in court. If the courts treat these obligations as an ordinary scheduling conflict, that must be resolved as a matter of judicial discretion, religious minorities become vulnerable and do not receive full protection of the constitutional provisions for the free exercise of their religion."
However, the plaintiff's representative rejected the claims and said that the court's decision not to postpone the hearing resulted mainly from improper administration by the doctor's lawyers.
According to the prosecutor, the defense raised concerns about the schedule only a week before the trial, even though the proceedings were set a year and a half in advance.
The prosecutor added that they were ready to comply with the request and postpone the trial, but the expert witness was unable to reschedule at such short notice.