Heart attack at work or during the performance of work is an occupational accident

In the precedent Court of Cassation decision below, in the case of the lawsuit filed as a case for the determination of the work accident, the accident suffered by the employee who went abroad with the instruction of the employer and had a heart attack during the delivery of the product was accepted as a work accident.

10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2023/6191 K. 2023/6523 T. 7.6.2023

COURT : Adana Regional Court of Justice 12th Civil Chamber

NUMBER : 2021/1761 E., 2022/1692 K.

DECISION : Acceptance

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE : Mersin 1st Labour Court

NUMBER : 2017/160 E., 2019/112 K.

At the end of the trial held due to the case of determination of the work accident between the parties, the Court of First Instance decided to dismiss the case.

Upon the appeal of the decision by the plaintiff’s attorney, the Regional Court of Appeal, with the acceptance of the application, lifted the judgement of the Court of First Instance and decided to accept the case by re-establishing a judgement on the merits.

The decision of the Regional Court of Appeal was appealed by the attorneys of the defendants; as a result of the preliminary examination made in terms of finality, duration, appeal requirement and other procedural deficiencies, after the decision was made to accept the petition for appeal and the report prepared by the Examining Judge … was listened, the documents in the file were examined and considered accordingly:

I. LAWSUIT

The plaintiff’s attorney claimed that the application of the plaintiff, whose spouse had an occupational accident, to the defendant institution for the determination of the occupational accident was rejected, that the plaintiff, who worked as a driver at the defendant workplace, was assigned to repair vehicles and died of a heart attack while doing this work, and requested a decision to determine that the incident was an occupational accident.

II. ANSWER

1. Defendant Akansel Nakliyat Pet. San. ve Tic. A.Ş.’s attorney stated that they objected to the petition of lawsuit, that they did not work in the company, that there was no employment relationship or employment contract between the company and the company, therefore they were not a party to the lawsuit, that the plaintiff died due to a heart attack, that the plaintiff’s wife, the deceased…’s death due to a heart attack, that the plaintiff’s wife was not at fault for the death of the deceased due to a heart attack, that he took all kinds of measures and precautions required by modern technology in terms of occupational health and safety of his own workers, that the employer is not liable because its liability is based on fault, that the plaintiff was shown as the party to be notified by the Social Security Institution, whereas, the Social Security Institution is the institution that decided that the incident was not an occupational accident, the Social Security Institution is the institution that decided that the incident was not an occupational accident, it is contrary to the procedure and the law to show it as a defendant, the Social Security Institution should follow the case as a defendant, for these reasons, there is an objection of hostility, the plaintiff’s lawsuit and demands are dismissed, the judicial expenses and attorney’s fee should be left on the plaintiff.

2. The defendant Institution’s representative stated that the incident was investigated by the Institution’s inspector İbrahim Turasan and the report dated 17.01.2013 dated 17.01.2013 and numbered 1184/INC/4, that the death of the claimant’s spouse was not an occupational accident, and that the death of the claimant’s spouse could not be characterised as an occupational accident due to the lack of a proper causal link between the heart attack of the claimant’s spouse and the workplace or working conditions and that the heart attack did not occur as a result of an external effect, as clearly and in detail in the investigation report, Since the investigation carried out by the institution for the stated reasons and the death of the plaintiff’s spouse is not considered as an occupational accident is in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation, the plaintiff requested the dismissal of the plaintiff’s lawsuit and the decision to impose the judicial expenses and attorney’s fee on the plaintiff.

III. FIRST INSTANCE COURT JUDGEMENT

With the decision of the Court of First Instance dated and numbered above; one of the plaintiff witnesses … stated that he did not know the plaintiff, he did not work for the defendant company, he had no knowledge and information about the work accident subject to the case, he worked as a sound artist in queue nights, the addresses of the other plaintiff witnesses were not reported by the plaintiff, and no convincing and concrete evidence was presented to the contrary of the minutes valid until the contrary is established, The procedure issued by the institution is in accordance with the procedure and law, the claimant could not prove that there is a proper causal link between the heart attack and the workplace or working conditions and that the heart attack did not occur as a result of an external effect, the decision issued by the institution that the current incident was not an occupational accident was duly issued, it was understood that the claimant could not prove the claim for the determination of the occupational accident, and the lawsuit was dismissed.

IV. EXCUSSION

A. Appellants

The plaintiff’s counsel filed an appeal against the above-mentioned decision of the Court of First Instance within due time.

B. Grounds of Appeal

The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the plaintiff’s wife had a heart attack while working at the defendant’s workplace, the plaintiff’s wife died of a heart attack after a great fatigue after repairing the car after the defendant’s employer told her to repair the car, as it can be understood in line with the established jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, that death by having a heart attack due to a heart attack at the workplace falls within the scope of an occupational accident, and that the decision given by the court of first instance should be revoked and a new decision should be made.

C. Justification and Conclusion

With the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal dated and numbered above, considering the fact that the insured started to work on 16.05.2012, went abroad in accordance with the transport contract dated 01.06.2012 signed between the insured and the defendant employer in the file, suffered a heart attack during the delivery of the product, suffered a physical malfunction and died, it should be accepted that the incident was an occupational accident, but the decision to dismiss the case with the opposite opinion is against the procedure and the law ;

“1-According to Article 353/1-b.2 of the CCP, the decision of the court of first instance shall be annulled ,

A. To accept the case

B. It was decided that the insured Ahmet Çarkç had an occupational accident on 16.05.2012″.

V. APPEAL

A. Appellants

Against the above-mentioned decision of the Regional Court of Appeal, the attorneys of the defendants appealed within the due time.

B. Grounds of Appeal

1. In his petition for appeal, the representative of the Defendant Institution stated that Article 59 of the Law No. 5510 stipulates that “the minutes issued by those who have the authority to inspect, control and audit shall be valid until the contrary is established” and that the lawsuit should be dismissed and requested the decision to be reversed.

2. In his petition for appeal, the defendant …’s attorney, in summary, stated that there was no employment relationship or employment contract between the company and the defendant, that the plaintiff died due to a heart attack, that the defendant had no fault in the death of the plaintiff’s wife, the deceased …, due to a heart attack, that it took all kinds of measures and precautions required by modern technology in terms of occupational health and safety of its own employees and requested the decision to be reversed.

C. Justification

1. Dispute and Legal Characterisation

The dispute is related to the claim for the determination of the work accident.

2. Relevant Law

The first paragraph of Article 369 and Articles 370 and 371 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Law No. 6100) and the provisions of Articles 13 and 95 of the Law No. 5510.

3. Evaluation

1. The final decisions of the regional courts of appeal may be reversed in the presence of one of the reasons set forth in Article 371 of the Law No. 6100.

2. The decision examined on appeal is in accordance with the procedure and law according to the mutual claims and defences of the parties, the documents they rely on, the legal rules that should be applied to the dispute and the characterisation of the legal relationship, the conditions of the case, the rules of trial and proof and the reasons stated in the decision, and the reasons put forward in the appeal petitions of the attorneys of the defendants and the examination of all the information and documents in the file have not been found to be of a nature that requires the decision to be reversed.

VI. DECISION

For the reason explained;

The appealed decision of the Regional Court of Appeal shall be upheld in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 370 of the Law No. 6100,

The file shall be sent to the Court of First Instance and a copy of the judgement shall be sent to the Regional Court of Appeal,

It was unanimously decided on 07.06.2023.

This content has been automatically translated into English from the Turkish original.