Turkish Medical Malpractice Lawsuits *2025 – Soylu Law

Medical Malpractice Case in Turkey

Medical malpractice, known as “malpraktis” in Turkey, refers to instances where patients suffer harm due to improper medical care or treatment that deviates from accepted medical standards. According to Turkish legal framework, medical malpractice is defined as harm caused to a patient due to a healthcare provider’s ignorance, inexperience, or negligence in the application of medical procedures.

The issue of medical malpractice has become increasingly significant in the Turkish judicial system over the past decade. Court records indicate that malpractice lawsuits represent one of the most frequently filed types of litigation in the country, with cases growing in both number and complexity. Turkish Medical Malpractice Lawyer expertise has become increasingly valuable as this trend reflects both increased patient awareness of their legal rights and the evolving standards of medical care expected by society.

Within the context of the Turkish healthcare system, which operates as a hybrid model combining both public and private healthcare institutions, the legal approach to malpractice varies significantly depending on where the alleged malpractice occurred. The system distinguishes between state hospitals, university hospitals, and private healthcare facilities, each operating under different liability regimes that directly impact how malpractice cases are adjudicated.

 

Theoretical Foundation of Medical Malpractice

Definition and Scope

The legal definition of medical malpractice in Turkey is primarily derived from the Turkish Medical Association’s Professional Ethics Rules. Article 13 of these rules specifically defines malpractice as “harm to a patient due to ignorance, inexperience, or negligence, constituting poor application of medical practice.” Under Turkish health law, this definition serves as the foundation for both civil and criminal proceedings related to medical malpractice.

In popular understanding, medical malpractice is commonly referred to simply as “doctor’s error” (doktor hatası), a term widely used by the general public and sometimes even in informal legal discussions. This simplified term, however, fails to capture the nuanced legal and medical aspects of malpractice cases.

The concept of medical malpractice has undergone significant evolution through recent judicial decisions, particularly in the rulings of the Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay). Recent interpretations have expanded the scope of malpractice to include not only a doctor’s error, ignorance, or negligence but also cases where physicians fail to follow current treatment methods or keep up with developments in medical science. This broader interpretation has significantly expanded the potential liability of healthcare providers.

Physician’s Duty of Care

In Turkey, medical professionals are legally obligated to demonstrate a standard of care that would be expected from a reasonably competent practitioner in their field. This standard does not require extraordinary skills or superhuman diligence but rather the care expected from an average qualified medical professional with similar training and experience.

The duty of care extends throughout the entire course of medical treatment, from preventive care and diagnosis to treatment phases and post-treatment follow-up. This comprehensive approach ensures that healthcare providers maintain appropriate levels of attention and care at every stage of patient interaction.

The Turkish legal system recognizes that different standards apply to different specialties and expertise levels. The expected standard of care from a general practitioner differs significantly from that expected of a specialist. For example, in surgical interventions, the standard of care expected from a general practitioner would not be equivalent to that demanded from a specialized surgeon. This differentiated approach acknowledges the varying levels of training, expertise, and specialization within the medical profession.

In cases of alleged malpractice, the courts typically evaluate whether the healthcare provider met the standard of care that would be expected from a reasonably competent practitioner of the same specialty under similar circumstances. This objective standard serves as the benchmark against which potentially negligent actions are measured.

 

Legal Framework for Medical Interventions

Medical Intervention Concept

In the Turkish legal system, medical intervention is broadly defined as any actions performed on the human body for the purpose of preventing, diagnosing, treating, or alleviating physical or psychological conditions. This comprehensive definition, central to Turkish health law, encompasses interventions designed to address not only diseases but also conditions that may not qualify as illnesses but nonetheless cause physical or psychological discomfort.

The concept of medical intervention finds its constitutional basis in Article 17 of the Turkish Constitution, which establishes fundamental protections for personal integrity. This article explicitly states: “The physical integrity of the individual shall not be violated except under medical necessity and in cases prescribed by law; and shall not be subjected to scientific or medical experiments without his or her consent.” This constitutional provision forms the foundational legal protection against unauthorized medical interventions and establishes consent as a fundamental prerequisite.

Requirements for Lawful Medical Interventions

For a medical intervention to be considered lawful under Turkish law, it must satisfy three essential criteria. First, the intervention must be performed by qualified medical personnel. According to Law No. 1219 on the Practice of Medicine and Its Branches, individuals who practice medicine without appropriate credentials face imprisonment of two to five years and judicial fines, even if their actions are not motivated by financial gain. This law clearly delineates which medical professionals are authorized to perform specific procedures, with particular restrictions placed on non-physician healthcare providers regarding diagnosis and treatment planning.

Second, informed consent of the patient is mandatory before proceeding with any medical intervention. Turkish law considers informed consent not merely as a formality but as a fundamental right of patients and an essential precondition for the legality of medical interventions. This requirement is derived from both constitutional principles and specific healthcare regulations.

Third, the intervention must be in compliance with medical science standards and methods prevailing at the time of treatment. This requires that the chosen diagnostic or treatment approach adheres to accepted medical practices, is supported by current scientific evidence, and is appropriate for the patient’s condition. Compliance with these standards is crucial in determining whether a healthcare provider has fulfilled their professional duty of care.

 

Informed Consent Requirements

The Process of Informing Patients

Turkish law places significant emphasis on the process of informing patients before obtaining their consent. The content of required information must include comprehensive details about the proposed medical intervention. Patients must be informed about the nature and purpose of the procedure, potential risks and benefits, the likelihood of success, possible side effects, consequences of refusing treatment, alternative treatment options, and the risks and benefits associated with these alternatives.

Regarding the methods and procedures for obtaining consent, Turkish regulations stipulate that information must be provided in clear, simple language without technical jargon, tailored to the patient’s social and cultural background to ensure comprehension. Except in emergencies, patients must be given reasonable time to consider the information before making a decision. While written consent forms are standard practice, Turkish law requires that verbal explanations supplement these forms, with the healthcare provider directly responsible for the intervention providing the information.

The law recognizes several special cases and exceptions to standard informed consent procedures. In emergency situations where obtaining consent is impossible and immediate intervention is necessary to preserve life or prevent serious harm, medical professionals may proceed without prior consent. There are also specific provisions for patients who are unconscious, mentally incapacitated, or otherwise unable to provide consent, as well as for situations involving communicable diseases that pose public health risks.

Capacity to Consent

Turkish law establishes clear legal capacity requirements for providing valid consent to medical interventions. Generally, adult patients of sound mind have the legal capacity to consent to or refuse medical treatment. The assessment of capacity focuses on whether the individual can understand the information provided, appreciate its significance, weigh it in the balance to arrive at a decision, and communicate that decision.

For minors and legally incapacitated persons, special rules apply. Medical intervention for these individuals typically requires consent from a legal guardian or representative. However, Turkish law mandates that minors or incapacitated persons who are capable of understanding should still be involved in the decision-making process to the extent possible. When legal representatives refuse consent for treatment that medical professionals consider essential, the matter may be referred to the courts under provisions of the Turkish Civil Code, specifically Articles 346 and 487.

In emergency situations, the concept of presumed consent becomes operative. Turkish law permits immediate necessary medical interventions without explicit consent when a patient’s health would be seriously compromised by delay. The legal foundation for this is the assumption that the patient would have consented had they been able to do so. This principle of presumed consent serves as an important exception to the general requirement for explicit informed consent, balancing the need for prompt medical action with respect for patient autonomy.

 

Liability and Non-Liability Scenarios

Complications vs. Malpractice

A critical distinction in Turkish medical law exists between acceptable complications and medical malpractice. While both may result in adverse outcomes for patients, they have fundamentally different legal implications.

Complications are recognized as inherent risks in medical procedures that may occur despite a physician exercising all appropriate care and following established medical protocols. When a physician has fulfilled all legal obligations—including obtaining proper informed consent, following medical standards, and exercising due diligence—adverse outcomes attributed to known risks are legally classified as complications rather than malpractice.

In contrast, malpractice occurs when harm results from a healthcare provider’s failure to meet the standard of care expected in their field. Turkish courts typically assess whether the negative outcome resulted from a deviation from established medical protocols or reflected a failure to exercise reasonable care.

The legal evaluation hinges on whether the physician adequately informed the patient about potential risks before the procedure and whether they performed the procedure in accordance with current medical knowledge and standards. A physician who has properly disclosed risks and adhered to medical standards will generally not be held liable for complications that arise despite proper care.

Situations Where Complications Transition into Malpractice

Complications can transform into legally actionable malpractice under several circumstances recognized in Turkish law:

1. When complications are not promptly identified due to:
   • Inadequate examination
   • Insufficient diagnostic testing
   • Deficient patient monitoring
2. When complications are identified but appropriate measures are not taken to address them
3. When complications are recognized and measures are taken, but the physician fails to implement established standard medical interventions appropriate for the situation

These transitions highlight that the line between complication and malpractice often depends not on the initial adverse outcome itself, but on the healthcare provider’s response to developing problems.

Circumstances Leading to Liability

Several specific circumstances consistently lead to liability in Turkish medical malpractice cases:

Failure to recognize complications constitutes a common basis for malpractice claims. This failure typically stems from insufficient attention to patient symptoms or inadequate understanding of potential complications associated with specific procedures or conditions. Turkish courts have repeatedly ruled that physicians have an affirmative duty to anticipate and recognize complications within their field of expertise.

Inadequate examination or follow-up represents another significant source of liability. This includes:

• Performing incomplete physical examinations
• Failing to order appropriate diagnostic tests
• Neglecting to maintain sufficient patient monitoring during critical periods
• Maintaining inadequate medical records that compromise care quality

Failure to take necessary measures once a complication or medical issue has been identified also triggers liability. Turkish courts evaluate whether the healthcare provider responded appropriately by:

• Implementing timely interventions
• Arranging for specialist consultations when required
• Initiating appropriate treatment protocols
• Ensuring proper patient transfer when necessary facilities are unavailable

 

Legal Responsibilities in Malpractice Cases

Civil Liability

In Turkey, civil liability for medical malpractice is primarily founded on the breach of contractual obligations or tort law principles, depending on the nature of the physician-patient relationship.

For privately practicing physicians, liability typically derives from the mandate contract (vekalet sözleşmesi) established between doctor and patient. In this context, the physician assumes an obligation to perform medical services with appropriate care rather than guaranteeing specific outcomes. The exception to this rule applies to certain procedures such as cosmetic surgery, which may be governed by work contract (eser sözleşmesi) principles where specific results are contractually promised.

For public hospitals, civil liability is based on the concept of service fault (hizmet kusuru), where the state assumes primary liability for errors committed by healthcare providers acting as public servants.

Types of Damages Recoverable

Turkish law recognizes two primary categories of recoverable damages in medical malpractice cases:

Material Damages (Maddi Tazminat)	Non-Material Damages (Manevi Tazminat)
Treatment costs: Additional medical care expenses required to address injuries resulting from malpractice	Pain and suffering: Physical pain and emotional distress experienced by the patient
Loss of income: Earnings lost during recovery periods when unable to work	Psychological distress: Psychological trauma resulting from disfigurement or disability
Loss of earning capacity: Reduction in future earning potential when permanent disability results	Loss of enjoyment of life: Diminished ability to perform normal life activities
Funeral expenses: Burial costs in fatal cases	Emotional trauma: Emotional devastation experienced by close family members in severe cases
Loss of financial support: Financial losses experienced by dependents of deceased patients	Loss of reputation: Social reputation damage due to visible injuries or loss of function
Determination method: Direct calculation of actual and documentable financial losses	Determination method: At the judge’s discretion, considering the severity of harm, degree of fault, and the victim’s personal situation

The determination of non-material damages falls within the discretion of the judge, who considers the specific circumstances of each case, including the severity of harm, degree of fault, and the victim’s personal situation.

Criminal Liability

Medical malpractice can also trigger criminal liability under Turkish law, predominantly through provisions relating to negligent offenses in the Turkish Criminal Code (TCK).

A fundamental distinction exists between negligence (taksir) and intent (kast) in Turkish criminal law. Most medical malpractice cases involve negligence rather than intentional harm, reflecting situations where the healthcare provider did not intend the harmful outcome but failed to exercise proper care.

Turkish criminal law further distinguishes between simple negligence (basit taksir) and conscious negligence (bilinçli taksir):

• Simple negligence occurs when the physician neither intends nor foresees the harmful outcome
• Conscious negligence exists when the physician does not intend harm but foresees the possibility of a negative outcome yet proceeds based on overconfidence in their professional judgment

This distinction affects both the severity of punishment and procedural requirements, with conscious negligence typically resulting in harsher penalties.

The most common criminal charges in medical malpractice cases include:

• Negligent injury (taksirle yaralama) under Article 89 of the Turkish Criminal Code, punishable by imprisonment from 3 months to 1 year or judicial fine, with increased penalties for aggravated forms of injury
• Negligent homicide (taksirle öldürme) under Article 85, carrying penalties of 2-6 years imprisonment, with higher ranges for multiple deaths or combined death and injury cases

In cases involving public healthcare providers, an additional charge of abuse of official duty through negligence (TCK 257/2) may apply when causation between the negligent act and harm cannot be established, but the act itself constitutes a breach of duty. This provision only applies to healthcare providers with public servant status and carries penalties of 3 months to 1 year imprisonment.

 

Jurisdictional Issues in Malpractice Litigation

Competent Courts

The determination of the competent court for medical malpractice cases in Turkey depends primarily on where the medical services were provided and the legal status of the healthcare provider. This creates a dual-track system for adjudicating malpractice claims. Malpractice Lawyer İstanbul professionals are particularly experienced in navigating this complex jurisdictional landscape for both domestic and international clients.

For cases involving private healthcare providers, including independent physicians, private clinics, and hospitals operated by companies or individuals, the Consumer Courts (Tüketici Mahkemeleri) have jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is established under Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection, which specifically includes mandate and work contracts within its scope. The legal rationale is that medical services provided by private entities constitute a consumer transaction, placing these disputes firmly within consumer protection law.

Conversely, when malpractice allegedly occurs in public hospitals, the Administrative Courts (İdare Mahkemeleri) have exclusive jurisdiction. This is because physicians and healthcare workers in public institutions are considered public servants, and their actions represent the functioning of government services. These cases are filed as “full remedy actions” (tam yargı davası) against the state institution rather than against individual healthcare providers directly.

The judicial approach to university hospitals introduces additional complexity. For state university hospitals, administrative courts maintain jurisdiction similar to other public institutions. However, for foundation (vakıf) university hospitals, while administrative courts still have jurisdiction, there is a notable difference: unlike public hospital physicians, doctors working at foundation university hospitals are not subject to Civil Servants Law No. 657. This distinction means that in cases of personal fault, patients may file direct civil actions against these physicians in addition to administrative proceedings against the institution.

Territorial Jurisdiction

The territorial jurisdiction for medical malpractice cases follows several principles depending on the legal basis of the claim and the status of the healthcare provider.

Under the general jurisdiction rules of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure, a lawsuit may be filed in the court of the defendant’s domicile. If there are multiple defendants, the plaintiff may choose the court of any defendant’s domicile. These provisions establish the basic framework for territorial jurisdiction in all civil cases, including medical malpractice litigation.

Special jurisdiction provisions for medical malpractice cases allow for additional options. When the claim is based on a contractual relationship, such as in private healthcare settings, the lawsuit may also be filed in the court where the contract was to be performed—typically the location where the medical treatment occurred. This provides plaintiffs with flexibility in selecting the most convenient venue.

The consumer protection provisions significantly expand territorial jurisdiction options for patients. Under Article 73 of the Consumer Protection Law, consumers (patients) may file lawsuits in the courts of their own domicile, regardless of where the medical services were provided. This consumer-friendly provision aims to reduce barriers to legal remedies by allowing patients to litigate in familiar surroundings without incurring travel expenses.

For medical malpractice cases filed as tort actions, plaintiffs may choose between the court of the defendant’s domicile, the place where the tortious act occurred, the place where the damage materialized, or the plaintiff’s own domicile. This multiplicity of options typically benefits the injured patient by providing several potential forums for litigation.

 

Statute of Limitations

Time Limits for Public Healthcare Institutions

Medical malpractice claims against public healthcare institutions are subject to distinctive time limitations under administrative law. The most critical time constraint is the one-year limitation period from discovery of the damage and the healthcare provider’s liability. This relatively short period requires injured patients to act promptly once they become aware of potential malpractice.

In addition to this discovery-based limitation, an absolute five-year limitation period applies, calculated from the date of the alleged malpractice. This absolute time bar means that no claim can be brought after five years, regardless of when the patient discovered the harm or its connection to medical treatment.

Before initiating litigation, patients must comply with certain administrative prerequisites. Specifically, the injured party must first submit a written compensation request to the relevant administration within the one-year discovery period. The administration then has 30 days to respond. If the request is rejected or deemed rejected through administrative silence, the patient must file their lawsuit within 60 days of the rejection. These procedural requirements constitute mandatory preconditions for litigation, and failure to comply results in dismissal of the case.

Importantly, in cases against public institutions, the extended limitation periods that might apply in criminal proceedings do not affect the administrative time limits. This means that even if the alleged malpractice constitutes a criminal offense with a longer limitation period, the administrative claim must still be brought within the one-year/five-year framework.

Time Limits for Private Healthcare Providers

For medical malpractice claims against private healthcare providers, the applicable limitation periods depend on the legal basis of the claim, creating a more complex landscape.

Contract-based claims, which typically arise from the mandate (vekalet) relationship between patient and physician or the patient acceptance contract with private hospitals, are subject to a five-year limitation period from the date of the alleged breach. This applies to most medical treatments, including general medicine, surgery, and other interventions where the physician does not guarantee a specific outcome.

For treatments classified as work contracts (eser sözleşmesi), such as aesthetic surgeries where a specific result is promised, a five-year limitation period also applies. The Turkish courts typically classify cosmetic procedures under this category due to the implied promise of a specific aesthetic outcome.

Tort-based claims follow the general civil law provisions, with a two-year limitation period from discovery of both the damage and the responsible party, and an absolute ten-year limitation from the date of the tortious act. This dual timeframe provides flexibility while ensuring that claims are not indefinitely pending.

The impact of criminal proceedings on civil limitation periods can be significant when the alleged malpractice also constitutes a criminal offense. In such cases, if criminal law provides for a longer limitation period, this extended period also applies to the related civil claim. However, this extension only applies to tort-based claims, not to contractual claims. This distinction can be crucial in determining the viability of a claim several years after the alleged malpractice.

When medical procedures are performed without proper consent, the legal relationship is classified as “negotiorum gestio” (unauthorized agency or vekaletsiz iş görme). Claims arising from such circumstances are subject to the general ten-year limitation period, providing patients with a substantially longer timeframe to seek legal remedies.

 

Legal Relationship Between Parties

Independent Physician-Patient Relationship

The relationship between an independently practicing physician and a patient in Turkey is primarily characterized as a mandate contract (vekalet sözleşmesi). This legal characterization has been consistently upheld by the Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) in numerous precedent cases. According to Article 502 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, mandate contract provisions are applicable to work agreements that are not specifically regulated by other provisions of law.

The mandate contract framework is particularly suitable for physician-patient relationships because it provides the physician with greater autonomy compared to employment or service contracts. Unlike these other contractual forms, a mandate contract does not establish a hierarchical relationship between parties, nor does it create the same level of dependency that exists in employer-employee relationships. Under this contract, the physician assumes the obligation to perform medical services with due care and diligence rather than guaranteeing specific outcomes.

The scope of responsibilities within this contractual relationship extends to diagnosis, treatment, appropriate follow-up care, and proper information disclosure. The physician must adhere to current medical standards and exercise reasonable care in treating the patient’s condition. However, physicians are generally not obligated to achieve specific results—rather, they are obligated to employ their best efforts and professional judgment.

In certain specific instances, such as aesthetic surgery, dental prosthetics, and orthopedic devices, the relationship may be governed by work contract provisions (eser sözleşmesi) rather than mandate contract provisions. These cases are distinctive because they involve the physician’s commitment to achieve a specific, tangible result. Under a work contract framework, the physician assumes greater liability, as the focus shifts from reasonable care to the achievement of promised outcomes.

Private Hospital-Patient Relationship

When a patient seeks treatment at a private hospital in Turkey, a unique contractual relationship known as a “patient acceptance contract” (hasta kabul sözleşmesi) is established between the patient and the hospital. While the Turkish Code of Obligations does not specifically define this contract type, it has been extensively discussed in legal doctrine and recognized in court decisions.

The patient acceptance contract is characterized by its mixed contractual nature (karma sözleşme), combining elements of several contract types regulated under Turkish law. The primary purpose of this contract is the treatment of the patient, with the core obligation being the provision of medical services. Additional services such as accommodation, meals, and general care are considered secondary obligations that support the main purpose of medical treatment.

Under this contractual relationship, the hospital assumes primary responsibility for all medical services provided within its facilities. The physicians and other healthcare professionals who actually perform the medical procedures are considered “performance assistants” (ifa yardımcısı) of the hospital under Article 116 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. Consequently, the private hospital bears strict liability for any malpractice committed by its medical staff, regardless of whether the hospital itself was at fault in selecting or supervising these professionals.

The private hospital’s primary obligations under this contract include providing appropriate medical treatment, while secondary obligations encompass accommodation, nutrition, and basic care services. The distinction between primary and secondary obligations becomes particularly important when determining the applicable legal provisions in case of breach or malpractice.

Public Hospital-Patient Relationship

The relationship between a patient and a public hospital in Turkey differs fundamentally from relationships with private healthcare providers. When a patient seeks treatment at a public hospital, no contractual relationship is established between the patient and either the hospital or its physicians. Instead, this relationship is governed by administrative law principles (idare hukuku).

Patients who receive treatment at public hospitals are considered beneficiaries of public services rather than contracting parties. Consequently, any harm resulting from malpractice in public hospitals is treated as a failure in the provision of public services, triggering state liability rather than individual physician liability.

This approach is explicitly mandated by Article 129, paragraph 5 of the Turkish Constitution, which stipulates that lawsuits seeking compensation for damages arising from the exercise of public authority must be filed against the administration rather than individual public servants. Similarly, Article 13 of the Civil Servants Law (Law No. 657) reinforces this principle by stating that individuals who suffer harm from actions related to public duties must file claims against the relevant institution rather than the personnel who performed those duties.

A significant limitation on direct claims against public physicians is that patients cannot directly sue doctors or other healthcare professionals employed at public hospitals for malpractice committed during the course of their official duties. Instead, the patient must file a “full remedy action” (tam yargı davası) against the state or relevant public entity in administrative courts. If the state is required to pay compensation, it retains the right to file a recourse action against the responsible healthcare professional in civil courts, based on the extent of the professional’s personal fault.

 

Practical Considerations

Burden of Proof

In Turkish medical malpractice litigation, one of the most challenging aspects for plaintiffs is satisfying the causation requirements. To establish liability, the plaintiff must demonstrate not only that a medical error occurred but also that this error caused the alleged harm. This requires proving a direct causal link between the healthcare provider’s action or inaction and the resulting damage to the patient.

Turkish courts generally apply the “appropriate causation” (uygun illiyet bağı) theory, which requires that the alleged malpractice must be objectively capable of causing the type of harm suffered by the patient under normal circumstances. If the court determines that the harm would have occurred regardless of the physician’s actions, the causation requirement is not satisfied, and liability cannot be established.

Expert evidence and medical reports play a decisive role in establishing both the existence of medical negligence and the causal connection to the patient’s harm. Given the technical nature of medical malpractice cases, courts heavily rely on expert opinions to determine whether the standard of care was breached. These expert opinions typically evaluate whether the healthcare provider’s actions deviated from accepted medical practices and whether such deviation caused the patient’s injuries.

The Forensic Medicine Institute (Adli Tıp Kurumu) occupies a central position in the Turkish medical malpractice litigation system. As an official state institution, the Institute’s opinions carry significant weight in court proceedings. In most medical malpractice cases, judges request expert reports from the specialized departments of the Forensic Medicine Institute. These reports are often decisive in determining whether malpractice occurred and whether it caused the alleged harm.

Relationship Between Criminal and Civil Proceedings

Medical malpractice cases in Turkey frequently involve both criminal and civil proceedings. Criminal investigations typically begin with a complaint to the prosecutor’s office, while civil claims for compensation may be filed simultaneously or subsequently. The impact of criminal findings on civil liability can be significant, although not automatically determinative.

While judges in civil courts are not bound by the conviction or acquittal decisions reached in criminal proceedings, they are bound by the factual determinations made in criminal courts. This distinction is important because the standards for criminal liability (requiring at least negligence) and civil liability (based on contractual breach or tort) differ substantially. A physician might be acquitted in criminal court yet still be found liable for damages in civil court.

The independent assessment of fault in civil courts means that civil judges may commission their own expert reports to evaluate the degree of fault and calculate appropriate compensation, regardless of findings in parallel criminal proceedings. Civil courts can also assess shared liability between multiple defendants and determine different percentages of fault, which may not be reflected in criminal verdicts.

Despite this independence, civil courts often suspend proceedings until the completion of criminal trials, treating the criminal matter as a “preliminary issue” (bekletici mesele). This practice allows civil courts to benefit from the extensive evidence gathering and expert testimony typically involved in criminal proceedings, while still maintaining their authority to make independent determinations regarding civil liability.

 

Frequently Asked Questions about Medical Malpractice in Turkey

What costs are involved in filing a medical malpractice lawsuit in Turkey?

The costs for filing a medical malpractice case in Turkey generally range from 3,000-4,000 Turkish Lira ($78.88-$105.18 / €69.38-€92.51) (April 2025 rate). These expenses cover postal notification fees, expert witness costs, and inspection expenses. It’s important to note that medical malpractice cases are considered consumer disputes and are therefore exempt from court fees.

How much do medical malpractice attorneys charge in Turkey?

Attorney fees for medical malpractice cases in Turkey are determined according to the minimum fee schedule published annually by the Turkish Bar Association in the Official Gazette. For Consumer Court cases (which handle most private healthcare claims), fees typically start at 37,500 TL ($986.06 / €867.25) (April 2025 rate) or 15% of the claim value, whichever is higher. Administrative Court cases with hearings typically start at 72,000 TL ($1,893.21 / €1,665.12) (April 2025 rate) or 15% of the claim value.

These fees represent the minimum charges that can be applied. In practice, they generally increase up to two or three times their original amount.

Payment schedules can be arranged between client and attorney, with some payments potentially tied to successful resolution of the case.

How long do medical malpractice cases typically take to resolve in Turkey?

Medical malpractice cases in Turkey typically take approximately 1-3 years to resolve at the first instance level. According to the Ministry of Justice’s target timeline implementation initiated in 2019, these cases are aimed to be completed within 300 days. However, based on practical experience, medical malpractice cases usually take between 2-3 years. If the case proceeds to appeal and higher courts, the entire process may extend to 3 years or more.

Is mandatory mediation required before filing a medical malpractice lawsuit in Turkey?

Yes, mandatory mediation is required in medical malpractice cases before filing a lawsuit in court. This is part of the “mandatory health mediation” process in Turkey. If you file a lawsuit without first going through mediation, your case will be rejected due to procedural deficiency. Effective mediation with a specialized medical malpractice attorney can potentially save you significant time and emotional distress compared to a lengthy court process.

Should I hire a specialized medical malpractice attorney?

Yes, hiring a specialized Turkish medical malpractice attorney is highly recommended. Medical malpractice is a complex area that requires knowledge across multiple disciplines including medicine, criminal law, and compensation law. A specialized Turkish medical malpractice lawyer can properly identify whether liability belongs to the medical personnel, the healthcare institution, or both. Many medical malpractice cases become prolonged or are dismissed due to incorrect identification of responsible parties. Having a specialized attorney helps prevent loss of rights and ensures proper case management.

 

About Soylu Law Firm

Soylu Law Firm provides comprehensive legal services in medical malpractice cases throughout Turkey. Our team specializes in handling international cases, with Turkish Medical Malpractice Lawyer expertise that has proven invaluable for clients from diverse jurisdictions.

We manage cross-border document processing and international legal requirements efficiently, ensuring seamless representation for foreign clients pursuing medical malpractice claims in Turkey.

Our multilingual legal team offers consultations in several languages to facilitate effective communication throughout the legal process.

 

For more assistance or consultation on this matter, you can contact us. Our Malpractice Lawyer İstanbul team is ready to provide professional guidance tailored to your specific case.