95 Union of Turkish Bar Associations Review 2022 TÜZÜNER / DUYMUŞ / ALGÜL In two verdicts corresponding to 2018 and 2020, the responsibility of the nurse in charge of the cold chain in the immunization activities of the family health centre was evaluated. The cold chain aims to preserve the effectiveness of the vaccine. Because of the nurse who did not fulfil this duty, the vaccines were become dysfunctional and the relevant institution suffered a loss. However, the lawsuit was dismissed on the grounds that the damage was caused by the lack of adequate equipment. On the other hand, the Supreme Court stated that the lack of sufficient equipment did not constitute sufficient grounds for dismissing the case, and this situation could only be considered as a reason for deduction from compensation.65 In 2019, the Supreme Court reiterated that the nurse is responsible for all kinds of her wrongful acts, including slight negligence.66 In another incident that was reflected in the case in the same year, the patient under the influence of narcosis was taken to his room by the nurses after he came out of the operation. However, because the nurses did not raise the safety armrests of the bed, the semi-conscious patient fell to the ground. After the re-operation was performed on the patient whose spleen ruptured, the responsibility of the nurses came to the fore.67 In two lawsuits in 2019, the Court of Cassation found the report issued by the Council of Forensic Medicine incomplete. The court, finding its justification insufficient because “the technique of injection and its incompatibility with the area applied” could not be identified with medical evidence, requested “sufficient and satisfactory explanation on whether the health personnel who performed the procedure showed the necessary care”. In addition, although loss of work and strength, recovery time and disability rate, if any, are requested, the court criticizes the interim decision not to include these issues in the report. The Court of Cassation requested the judge of the first instance court to “obtain a report open to parties and judicial review from a committee of three experts, who will be composed of expert lecturers in medical faculties of universities”. Due to incomplete examination, the Supreme Court went to the way of reversing.68 65 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2016/11513, 2018/7622, 5.12.2018. 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2019/1856, 2020/199, 22.1.2020. 66 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2016/24615, 2019/12860, 19.12.2019. 67 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2018/4890, 2019/11954, 2.12.2019. 68 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2016/10242, 2019/5070, 18.4.2019.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1