92 The Legal Responsibility of Nurses in the Light of the Turkish Court of Cassation Jurisprudence two beneficiaries of health benefits. However, these patients did not use these fake written prescriptions medicines.53 In 2007, this jurisprudence is again about injection. The plaintiff, who came to the emergency room with severe kidney pain, was given a painkiller injection. The injection was prescribed by the physician, and the administration was carried out by the nurse. However, the needle that came into the nerve caused paralysis of the plaintiff’s right leg. The fact that the plaintiff’s body is very weak, that is, lean, is mentioned among the reasons for the defendants to defend themselves. The decision of the first-instance court ruling on compensation was overturned by the Supreme Court. Because the report from the Council of Forensic Medicine is insufficient. The wrongful acting rate of 4/8 was attributed to the nurse. However, it is not discussed why the defendant doctor did not have the rest of the wrongful acting rate of 4/8. It is not possible to establish a judgement based on an incomplete report.54 In the 2011 jurisprudence, the faultiness of the nurse was indisputable. Because she caused the paralysis of the right foot of a sevenyear-old child by injecting the injection needle to the vein, which was supposed to be applied to the muscle and in which’s prospectus has a warning that it may not be applied to the vein. However, since the action was carried out by the nurse working in the state hospital, the aforementioned case was rejected due to the lack of jurisdiction and the administrative jurisdiction was pointed out.55 In 2012, it was jurisprudence that the civil jurisdiction was not responsible for the liability of the nurse for intramuscular injection, who works in the state hospital.56 In 2013, the degree of wrongful act of the nurse who gave the wrong injection was determined as 4/8 in criminal proceedings. This rate was also taken into account in the civil proceedings and half of the damage was compensated to the nurse who performed the faulty injection.57 53 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2004/6066, 2005/290, 25.1.2005. 54 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2007/7502, 2007/9890, 9.7.2007. 55 Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, 2011/4-64, 2011/200, 20.4.2011. 56 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2012/6576, 2012/10015, 7.6.2012. 57 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2012/8778, 2013/8959, 16.5.2013.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1