In the decision of the 15th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 22.05.2019 and numbered 2017/2329 E. and 2019/2441 K., the decision was reversed due to the insufficiency of the expert reports obtained as a result of the trial held after the previous reversal of the 13th Civil Chamber.
The plaintiff, who has autism, applied to the defendant dental hospital for dental treatment together with his parents. In order to perform dental treatment by the other defendant physician, the anaesthesiologist physician from the defendants performed anaesthesia with sedation method. However, after the sedation, when the patient showed persistent muscle contractions, an increase in body temperature and an increase in carbon dioxide at the end of the breath, the physician who performed the anaesthesia procedure took the patient in his arms and transferred the patient to the private hospital with a private vehicle and then to the university hospital and took him to the intensive care unit. The patient came out of the intensive care unit with loss of speech and a number of other symptoms.
In the forensic medicine report obtained before the reversal of the 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation and in two separate reports obtained after the reversal, no fault was attributed to the defendants on the grounds that there was no fault of the defendants, there was no error in the selected anaesthesia method and in the management of the medical picture that occurred.
After the reversal, the 15th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation reversed the decision of the local court on the following four points.
1. Whether the correct anaesthetic method was chosen has not been sufficiently discussed.
2. It was not discussed whether it was correct to transfer the patient to the other hospital on the physician’s lap.
3. The anaesthesia information form does not provide adequate information about possible complications, and it is incorrect to only obtain a statement of general acceptance.
4. Although the dispute and the medical condition arose from anaesthesia, there is no anaesthesiologist in the reports.
As a result, the judgement was reversed by saying, “Get a report from an expert committee specialised in anaesthesia, intensive care and dental treatment, investigate the defects of the defendants, and make a decision in accordance with the result that will be reached by meeting the objections”.
This content has been automatically translated into English from the Turkish original.
Av. Arb. Bahadırhan Tabak
He completed their bachelor's degree at Istanbul University Faculty of Law and their master's degree in Public Law at Çankaya University. He is currently pursuing a PhD in Medical Law at Medeniyet Üniversitesi. Starting his career as a judge, TABAK served in Elazığ and Ankara for a period of time. Most recently, while serving as a judge at the 15th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which acts as a higher court reviewing legal disputes arising from aesthetic operations, he resigned from the judiciary and transitioned to private practice. Currently, he is registered with the Istanbul Bar Association as an attorney and mediator, focusing primarily on Health Law in his legal practice. Click Here For Detailed Information