101 Union of Turkish Bar Associations Review 2022 TÜZÜNER / DUYMUŞ / ALGÜL of the injection is purely due to the complication, the nurse’s fault is not mentioned. The nurse is irresponsible in the injection neuropathy which is characterized as complication. Conversely, sciatic nerve damage leads to malpractice if it is due to error in needle technique or incorrect choice of medicine, dose, or area.87 This is why the Court of Cassation attaches great importance to expert examination in cases of injection neuropathy. However, the competent person may characterize the concrete event as malpractice or complication. The court should obtain a scientifically reasoned committee report that is suitable for adjudicating. Reports from the Council of Forensic Medicine are mostly seen as insufficient. In addition, a committee report prepared based on academic expertise such as EMG and/or MR is expected from independent neurologists occupying positions at universities.88 “It is not a coincidence that the number of lawsuits filed alleging medical malpractice has increased. With the technological and scientific developments, the education level and social interaction of the society has increased… Along with the social awareness, the expectations of the patients who receive service from the health industry have also increased…”.89 Like that, the opinion that explains the physician in the consciousness of the victim in the clamp of law and attributes the frequency of malpractice cases to the physician’s lack of minimum physical conditions to provide ideal health care should be mentioned.90 87 Kaya Kenan/Necmi Çekin, “Enjeksiyon Sonrası Gelişen Nöropati: Komplikasyon/Malpraktis Ayrımında İnce Bir Çizgi”, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 2018, 13/2, p. 64, 65. See also Şaşı, p. 70, 86. 88 21st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2004/7439, 2004/8136, 11.10.2004. 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2005/5837, 2005/5679, 26.5.2005. 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2007/7502, 2007/9890, 9.7.2007. Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, 2011/4-64, 2011/200, 20.4.2011. 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2012/6576, 2012/10015, 7.6.2012. 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2012/8778, 2013/8959, 16.5.2013. 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2015/30631, 2016/7474, 10.3.2016. 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2015/4491, 2016/9749, 6.4.2016. 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2015/19241, 2016/13610, 26.5.2016. 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2015/18038, 2017/3975, 5.4.2017. 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2016/10242, 2019/5070, 18.4.2019. 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2016/13768, 2019/6769, 29.5.2019. 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2016/30032, 2020/25, 13.1.2020. 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2020/3974, 2020/8071, 26.6.2020. 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2017/6263, 2020/3386, 25.3.2020. 89 Yördem, p. 539. Özkaya/Elbüken, p. 110. See also Cantürk, p. 304. 90 Akbaba/Davutoğlu, p. 609.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1