Compensation for anesthesia error arises where an unlawful practice or negligence in anesthesia care causes harm to the patient. The review covers the whole process: preparation, drug administration, monitoring of breathing and circulation, the response to complications and post-operative care. A serious outcome does not by itself prove medical error. On the other hand, describing an event as a "complication" does not remove the question of whether the necessary precautions were taken.
The personal liability of the anesthesiologist, the hospital's duty to organize the service and the insurer's obligation under the policy are assessed separately. In public hospitals, the route for a claim and the party to be sued also change. This article explains these distinctions through four real Court of Cassation decisions, medical records and limitation periods. The legal assessment is current as of 11 October 2026.
When does an anesthesia error arise?
Anesthesia care is not limited to putting the patient to sleep. General anesthesia, regional anesthesia and sedation are different procedures; in a dispute, the first question is which method was used and for what purpose. Anesthesia and sedation may also be applied outside the operating theatre, for example during endoscopy or imaging. A short procedure does not remove the need to assess the patient and to monitor them under appropriate conditions. The Turkish Society of Anesthesiology and Reanimation (TARD) also states in its patient information that team monitoring covers the operation and the recovery period. [16]
The legal standard is the conduct to be expected of a careful specialist working in the same field under the circumstances of the case. As a rule, the physician does not guarantee a recovery; the physician is bound to carry out the necessary assessment, choose the appropriate method, monitor the patient and respond to problems in time. A guideline published later cannot automatically serve as the standard for an earlier intervention. The scientific knowledge at the date of the event, the urgency and the characteristics of the patient are examined together. [1, 2]
Lack of pre-anesthesia assessment
The patient's earlier anesthesia experience, existing illnesses, medications in use, reported allergies and risks specific to the procedure all form part of the assessment. Which tests or consultations are necessary is not the same for every patient. The legal problem is not that every possible test was omitted, but that the examination required for this particular patient was skipped.
For example, if a serious problem during an earlier anesthetic has been reported, the review examines how that information was reflected in the present assessment. If the information in the hospital's electronic file differs from the information on the anesthesia form, the dates and accessibility of the records are compared. The content of the instructions given about fasting and medication use, whether they were understandable and whether the patient followed them are also important, depending on the circumstances. A signature confirming that an assessment was carried out does not, by itself, remedy substantial gaps in its content. [1, 2]
Errors in drug, dose and route of administration
Giving the wrong drug, an unsuitable dose, an incorrect route of administration or overlooking a significant drug interaction may be the subject of a claim of fault. However, it is not enough for the file to show only the name of the drug. The time of administration, the amount, the route, the person who administered it and the clinical developments that followed must be read together.
An allergic reaction raises different questions: whether the earlier information was investigated, and how the unexpected reaction was managed. The fact that routine allergy testing is not performed before every anesthetic drug does not, in itself, establish fault. The TARD information states that such routine tests are not performed on all patients. [16] On the other hand, failure to assess a known risk, or an inadequate response to a reaction that develops, is examined separately.
Airway management and monitoring during surgery
Difficulty with intubation, a problem with oxygenation or an equipment alarm does not, by itself, mean that the procedure was carried out incorrectly. The review should examine whether preparation was made for foreseeable difficulties, whether suitable equipment was available, and when help was called and treatment given. It matters not only that equipment was present, but also that it was working and was used correctly by the team.
The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) basic monitoring standard addresses, among other things, the presence of competent staff during anesthesia and the assessment of oxygenation, ventilation, circulation and body temperature. This professional document is not a statute in Türkiye; its scope and its applicability on the date of the event must be assessed by an expert. In particular, the limits of its scope for obstetric patients in labor must not be overlooked. [17]
Waking up, recovery and transfer to the ward
Monitoring after anesthesia does not end automatically when the operation ends. The transfer of the patient to the recovery area or intensive care, the persons between whom the handover took place, the observation findings and the decision to discharge to the ward are all important. A legal assessment cannot rest on a single waiting time applicable to every patient.
The ASA standard for post-anesthesia care governs appropriate monitoring during transport, the reporting of the patient's condition to the staff who take over, the recording of care and the determination of responsibility for discharge. The legal lesson is this: a "stable" entry on a form does not mean that all of the patient's risks have ended; the subsequent monitoring arrangements must be examined separately. [18]
How is a complication distinguished from anesthesia malpractice?
A complication is an unwanted result that can occur despite appropriate medical treatment. In a legal review, the foreseeability of the risk, the necessary precautions, the patient's information and the management of the problem that developed are separate stages. The fact that a risk appears among the known complications does not prove that all these stages were properly carried out in the specific case.
In a claim involving delayed waking from anesthesia, brain damage, nerve injury or death, the cause of the outcome must be determined through specialist examination. Anesthesia, the surgical procedure, the patient's earlier illness and the effects of subsequent care must not be confused. Even if faulty conduct is established, a causal link must be shown between that conduct and the damage claimed. Distinguishing additional harm that could have been prevented from the unavoidable result of the illness also affects the calculation of compensation. [1, 3]
The physician or the hospital may argue that the practice conformed to the standards, that the risk materialized despite due care, or that there is no link between the alleged damage and the treatment. These defenses must be assessed through the patient's own records and a reasoned expert opinion, not through the abstract word "complication". The decisions set out below show that the same type of outcome may lead to different legal assessments in different files.
How is informed consent for anesthesia assessed?
Does consent to surgery also cover anesthesia?
Information given about the surgical procedure may not always be sufficient in respect of the features and risks of the anesthesia method. The patient must be informed about the method to be used, the material risks, the suitable alternatives and the consequences of refusal, in a form that the patient can understand. The review cannot be reduced to the title of the document or to the mere existence of a separate sheet of paper; the content of the explanation, the timing and the patient's ability to understand are decisive. [2, 9]
Signing a standard printed form does not mean that all disclosure obligations have been met. On the other hand, a standard form is not automatically invalid merely because it is printed. The patient-specific explanations, any change of method, the answers given to questions and the circumstances in which the signature was obtained are examined. Where a signature was obtained under sedation, the patient's capacity to make a decision must be investigated separately.
Does consent remove the right to sue for faulty treatment?
By consenting, the patient permits the explained procedure; the patient is not presumed in advance to have consented to the physician failing to exercise due care. In professional services that require specialist skill and are carried out with permission, the provision on exemption agreements for slight negligence in Article 115(3) of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (TBK) is also important in this respect. A broad wording in a consent document does not create a valid exemption from liability for every form of negligence. [1]
Where, in an emergency, the patient cannot give consent and the intervention cannot be delayed, the exceptions in the Patients' Rights Regulation are considered. Urgency is not a general justification that removes all the obligations to inform and to keep records. For children, or for persons who lack the capacity to decide, the rules on representation are relevant; for foreign patients, it is also important that the explanation is given in a language they understand. [2]
When are the anesthesiologist, the surgeon and the hospital liable?
The anesthesiologist and other team members
The anesthesiologist's obligations are examined in respect of choosing the method, administering it, monitoring the patient and the interventions within the anesthesiologist's own field. The liability of the surgeon, the anesthesia technician or the nurse is assessed according to their specific duties, instructions, observation and ability to intervene. Being present at the same operation does not mean that everyone is equally at fault.
The division of work within a team does not remove the duty to report an obvious danger or to provide necessary help. Where the conditions for joint and several liability of several persons for the same damage are met, it may arise under Article 61 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. For this, the basis of liability of each person must be identified; fault must not be attributed automatically and collectively to the entire team. [1]
The hospital's organizational responsibility and liability for auxiliary persons
A private hospital has a duty to organize adequate staff, appropriate equipment, the possibility of emergency intervention, and a system of care and handover. Depending on the scope of the hospital admission relationship, the hospital may be liable not only for its own organizational failings but also for the conduct of the persons it uses in providing the service. It is not possible to make a single statement of liability for all private hospitals without examining how the physician works and the contracts with the patient. [1]
The fact that no error in the anesthetic drug or dose has been identified does not place the shortcomings in post-operative monitoring outside the scope of review. Indeed, the Court of Cassation decision of 17 July 2023, discussed below, accepted the finding that the physicians were not at fault, while separately examining the hospital's duty of monitoring. [22]
Ayvat and Ayvat's 2025 study also shows the importance of communication, service organization and review processes in complaints concerning anesthesia and intensive care. The study examines 20 decisions relevant to the subject out of 12,612 records in the database of the Ombudsman Institution (Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumu). This limited sample does not show how frequently errors occur across Türkiye, or the likelihood of winning a particular case. [19]
Public hospitals and the physician's professional insurance
For damage arising from anesthesia care connected with the performance of a public duty, the general rule is an application to the relevant administration followed by a full remedy action (tam yargı davası) in the administrative courts. Article 125 and Article 129(5) of the Constitution and Article 13 of Law No. 657 on Civil Servants are the principal bases for this distinction. The hospital's signboard should not be relied upon alone: the legal entity that provides and runs the service, the status of the university and the relevant service relationship must be identified. [5–7]
The injured person may, where the conditions are met, claim directly against the liability insurer under Article 1478 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (TTK). However, insurance does not mean that every adverse outcome will be paid unconditionally. The insured person's liability is examined in terms of the relevant policy, notice and timing, and the scope, exclusions and limits. It cannot be assumed that the hospital's own organizational fault falls within the scope of the physician's individual policy. The duties and pre-claim procedures that apply to a claim against the insurer must also be assessed. [8, 9]
How is an anesthesia error proved?
Which records should be requested?
The patient or the authorized representative may examine the health records and obtain copies under Article 16 of the Patients' Rights Regulation. e-Nabız printouts may be useful, but they may not contain all of the hospital's anesthesia and device records. The request should not be limited to the discharge summary; it should clearly state which records are sought in relation to which date and procedure. [2]
| Stage | Priority records | Legal question to examine |
|---|---|---|
| Preparation | Anesthesia assessment, earlier illness and medication information, consent | Were the risks assessed and the method explained? |
| Procedure | Anesthesia monitoring chart, drug administration times, existing device records | What was the chronological order of the procedure, drugs and findings? |
| Acute deterioration | Intervention, consultation, call for help and referral records | When was the problem noticed, and what interventions were made? |
| Recovery and ward | Handover, observation, discharge decision and nursing records | Was appropriate monitoring provided and was the patient safely handed over? |
| Continuing harm | Intensive care, rehabilitation, disability and expense documents | What is the permanent outcome, the need for care and the economic loss? |
It cannot be assumed that device data is stored in the same form and for the same period in every institution. The current electronic records may be requested to be preserved together with their time information and change history. For evidence that may be lost or become difficult to obtain later, the preservation of evidence under Article 400 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK) may be considered; in administrative proceedings, the relevant procedural provisions may be assessed. Patient data must be processed only to the extent necessary for the legal purpose, and the health information of unrelated persons must not be published or shared on social media. [3, 5, 12]
Burden of proof and objection to the expert report
Article 190 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK) sets out the general rule on proof. In a tort claim, Article 50 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) applies; in a claim for breach of contract, Article 112 TBK applies, and different assessments are required. In contractual liability, the debtor may bear the burden of proving the absence of fault, but the damage, the breach and the causal link are not all presumed to be proved. Whether the duty to inform was performed is a separate question that must also be shown. [1, 3]
Expert examination should address questions requiring knowledge of anesthesiology and resuscitation through the relevant specialty. Where there is neurological damage, a surgical problem or a failure of care, additional specialties may be needed. The report is expected to explain the chronology of the event, to discuss the objections, and to show which records it relies on in reaching its conclusion. A report of the Council of Forensic Medicine (Adli Tıp Kurumu) is also not an unassailable ruling that is independent of the court's assessment.
In civil proceedings, an objection to an expert report may be made under Article 281 of the HMK within two weeks of service. Where an objection is very difficult or impossible to prepare because of the technical nature of the work and is made within the same period, a single additional period not exceeding two weeks may be granted. Missing questions, contradictions in the records and lack of expertise must be shown concretely. Where necessary, a supplementary report, a new panel or a specialist opinion under Article 293 of the HMK should be considered. [3]
Four real Court of Cassation decisions in anesthesia disputes
Reversal of a rejection judgment because of an error in epidural administration
3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi), 8 May 2025, E. 2024/4075, K. 2025/2669. In an action brought after the death of a patient following epidural anesthesia administered during and after childbirth, the lower courts rejected the claims. The Court of Cassation examined the verification of the catheter position, the assessment of symptoms after the first administration, and the university expert report on the subsequent administration of medication. In line with that report, the Court held that the anesthesia procedure had been faulty and that the service was defective, and it reversed the rejection judgment in favor of the claimants. [20]
The importance of the decision lies in reading the medical findings in the report together with the outcome. The Court of Cassation did not fix a specific amount of compensation; it asked that the claims be examined in light of this assessment. The drug-related assessment specific to the case cannot be used as a general treatment instruction for all epidural procedures.
Affirmation of a rejection judgment where nerve damage was accepted as a complication
3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi), 30 April 2025, E. 2024/3459, K. 2025/2475. In a dispute concerning left femoral nerve damage and arachnoiditis said to have developed after a caesarean section, the anesthesia method and the consent were also discussed. The Court of Cassation affirmed the rejection, noting that the specialist opinion in the file had been assessed in the expert report, that no medical error had been found, that the picture was accepted as a complication, and that appropriate informed consent had been obtained. [21]
This decision shows that every nerve injury does not prove fault in anesthesia. At the same time, the claimant's assertion that "consent was not obtained" must be kept distinct from the court's conclusion on that assertion. The decision cannot be generalized to mean that every nerve injury after anesthesia is an unavoidable complication.
Physicians found not at fault, but the hospital's monitoring examined separately
3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi), 17 July 2023, E. 2022/5227, K. 2023/2166. In a case where severe neurological damage developed after surgery and the patient later died, the Court of Cassation accepted the assessment that the physicians were not at fault. However, taking into account the patient's characteristics and the position of the patient after the operation, the Court found that the hospital, which had not taken the necessary monitoring and control measures, was at fault, and it reversed the rejection judgment. [22]
The decision shows that the suitability of the anesthetic drug and dose does not, on its own, remove the hospital's duty of care. The reversal concerns the assessment of compensation claims against the hospital; it does not mean that all the physicians were at fault or that a specific amount of compensation has been fixed.
Rejection of a claim against the insurer for an intubation complication
11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi), 15 December 2025, E. 2025/2821, K. 2025/7526. A lawsuit was filed against the physician's insurer after a patient who had been brought to hospital urgently suffered an airway problem following prolonged intubation. The lower court's assessment was that the physician was not at fault, that the outcome was a complication, and that the conditions of the emergency intervention had been taken into account. The Court of Cassation affirmed the appellate decision rejecting the claim. [23]
This decision shows that a direct action against the insurer does not remove the requirement of the conditions of liability. It cannot be asserted that every damage arising from intubation will have the same outcome; the procedure, the follow-up and causation must be examined in each file.
Which pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses may be claimed?
The scope of compensation is determined by the concrete loss that can be attributed to the anesthesia error. The consequences of a pre-existing illness, or every subsequent treatment expense, cannot be automatically charged to the defendant. The nature, duration and necessary level of care of the harm must be shown with medical documents; income and expenditure must be shown with appropriate financial records. [1]
| Claim | Necessary explanation and documents | Principal limit |
|---|---|---|
| Treatment and rehabilitation | Need for additional treatment, invoices, medical justification | Expenses linked to the defective service and necessary in nature |
| Loss of earnings and earning capacity | Income records, occupation, working status, appropriate medical report | Temporary loss is distinguished from permanent loss |
| Cost of care | Scope and duration of the need for help | Not every serious diagnosis gives rise to the same care calculation |
| Loss caused by death | Funeral costs, the relationship of support and economic data | Inheritance alone is not sufficient to claim loss of support |
| Non-pecuniary damages | The seriousness of the event, its effects and personal circumstances | There is no fixed tariff; the claims of relatives are assessed separately |
Articles 53 to 56 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) set out the basic framework for compensation for death, bodily injury and non-pecuniary damage. In case of serious bodily injury, or of death, non-pecuniary damages in favor of relatives may arise. Where psychological effects are alleged, such as awareness during surgery, the event, the psychological harm and causation must be assessed. Not every fear or dissatisfaction creates an automatic right to compensation.
A defense may be raised that the patient withheld important information or did not follow explicit instructions. For the purposes of Article 52 TBK, it is examined whether this had any real effect on the occurrence or increase of the damage. A general note on a form is not enough to place the entire responsibility on the patient.
As to interest, the 2026 amendment must not be overlooked. The provisions added to Article 55 TBK introduce a distinction in interest for the loss of earning capacity and loss of support: the date of the event is used for the period in which the income is known, and the date of the decision for the period in which it is not known. The offsetting of advance payments is also separately regulated. Because of the transitional provision of Law No. 7589, the application of the new rule depends on the date of the event; it is not correct to write a single interest start date for all claims. [1, 15]
Where and within what period is an anesthesia error action brought?
Competent court and steps before the action
Where private healthcare is a consumer transaction, the provisions of consumer law apply. The competence of the consumer court, the scope of the arbitration committee and the exceptions to the requirement of mediation as a condition precedent to litigation under Article 73/A of the Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 (TKHK) must be assessed according to the concrete claim. In a file where mediation is required, bringing an action before that step is complete may create a procedural problem. Territorial jurisdiction is determined by examining the defendant, the contract, the place of damage and the special jurisdictional rules for consumers together. [3, 4]
In public healthcare, the route is an application to the relevant administration within the prescribed time, followed by a full remedy action. Where the institution is a university hospital or operates under a different management model, the competent judicial body must not be determined from the institution's name alone. Claims against the insurer, the physician and the administration cannot always be assumed to be joined in the same action.
Limitation and time limits for administrative actions
| Legal route | General time frame | Distinction to note |
|---|---|---|
| Tort claim | Two years from learning of the damage and the person liable; ten years from the act | Longer criminal limitation periods may apply in some cases and must be examined separately |
| Mandate contract | As a rule, five years | The starting point of maturity and the legal nature of the claim are important |
| Application to the administration | One year from learning; five years from the act | Late-emerging damage and the fact of learning are assessed separately |
| Full remedy action | As a rule, sixty days from proper notice of an express rejection or from the expiry of thirty days without response | The date of application, service and special circumstances are calculated together |
This table is not a final-date calculation for a personal file. The type of contract, the dates of the event and of learning, the addressee of the claim and any applicable exceptions may change the result. In particular, in events where the damage becomes apparent later, it should not be assumed that all periods restart automatically. [1, 5]
A criminal complaint to the prosecutor, a general complaint to the hospital or an application to the Presidential Communication Center (CİMER) does not preserve the time limits for a damages action in every case. The content and addressee of an administrative pre-application must be appropriate. Where mediation is a condition precedent to litigation, the suspension provisions of Article 18/A of the Law on Mediation in Civil Disputes No. 6325 must also be taken into account. [5, 11]
The 2026 amendment, the amount claimed and litigation costs
Law No. 7589, published in the Official Gazette on 31 July 2026, repealed Article 107 of the HMK and introduced a rule in Article 109(4) allowing the amount of a partial claim to be increased once in the same action, until the end of the fact-finding stage. The same law also provides that, for the increased part, the limitation period is treated as interrupted on the date of the action. However, for actions opened before the repeal, the former Article 107 continues to apply. For this reason, the description of an "indeterminate claim action" in past decisions should not be carried over unchanged into new petitions. [3, 15]
In administrative proceedings, an increase in the amount claimed is separately assessed under Article 16(4) of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK). Court fees, expert fees and other litigation costs, as well as the possible award of counsel fees against the claimant, must be estimated at the outset. The fee exemption available to consumers does not mean that all costs are absent. Where the conditions are met, legal aid may be requested. [3–5]
How are the application, interim payment and recovery handled?
In the first stage of the file, the medical records must be preserved, the sequence of events established and the correct addressee identified. If the patient is alive, the right to claim belongs as a rule to the patient; kinship alone does not confer authority to represent. In cases of death, minority or lack of capacity to decide, inheritance, parental custody, guardianship and claims for personal damage must be examined separately.
Where there is economic need and credible evidence of the merits of the claim, an interim payment may be considered under Article 76 TBK. An attachment order for a money claim depends on the special conditions in the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, and the mere existence of an allegation of malpractice is not an automatic ground for attachment. The method of recovering an award of compensation depends on whether the debtor is a private person or an administration. For the enforcement of administrative court decisions, Article 28 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) is taken into account. [1, 5, 14]
A criminal investigation and a disciplinary application are not the same process as a damages action. The investigation permission regime under supplementary Article 18 of Law No. 3359 on Health Services and the exceptions set out in the law are examined for the criminal process; that permission is not a precondition for all damages actions. The effect of the criminal decision on the civil action is assessed under Article 74 TBK. [1, 10]
For foreign patients treated in Türkiye, jurisdiction, the applicable law, a properly executed power of attorney and translation are also important. The fact that the patient is a foreigner does not automatically require foreign law to be applied. Guarantee obligations and exemptions are also examined under the rules of private international law. [13]
Conclusion
In an anesthesia error claim, the decisive question is not only whether the patient was harmed after anesthesia. It must be explained which duty was breached in the stages of preparation, procedure, monitoring and care, and what damage that breach caused. The anesthesiologist's fault, the hospital's organization and the scope of insurance are not interchangeable assessments.
The decisions reviewed show that an error in epidural administration may lead to the reversal of a rejection judgment, and that in another case where appropriate administration and consent were found, the rejection may be affirmed. In a file where no physician fault is found, the hospital's monitoring responsibility may still continue. A sound legal assessment depends on reviewing all records together, on a report prepared by the correct specialty, and on protecting the time limits for filing. For a general overview of the legal framework, the medical malpractice lawsuit guide may be consulted.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is failure to wake up from anesthesia on its own a medical error?
No. The medical cause of the outcome, whether the treatment was appropriate, and the monitoring and interventions must be examined. Serious harm requires separate examination of fault and causation. Details are in the section on complication and malpractice distinguished.
Can an action be brought for nerve damage after epidural anesthesia?
Claims may be made where it is alleged that the conditions of liability are present in the specific case; nerve damage alone does not ensure that the claim is accepted. The procedure, the consent and the subsequent monitoring are assessed together. Verified decisions section explains the different outcomes.
Can a patient who signed a consent form claim compensation?
Yes. A signature does not by itself remove the rights arising from careless treatment. The adequacy of the explanation and the appropriateness of the procedure are examined separately. See informed consent.
Can the hospital be liable if the anesthesiologist is not at fault?
It can. A shortcoming in the hospital's own staffing, equipment, handover or monitoring arrangements may create separate liability. The hospital's organizational liability section explains this distinction.
Are e-Nabız records sufficient to prove an anesthesia error?
Not always. The detailed anesthesia form at the hospital, the drug times, the existing device data and the recovery records may also be needed. See records that should be requested.
If the expert report finds no fault, does the case end definitively?
No. A reasoned, incomplete or contradictory report may be objected to in accordance with the procedure. The court assesses the report together with the other evidence. The time limits in the section on objection to an expert report are important.
Where should a claim be made for an anesthesia error in a state hospital?
For damage connected with a public service, the general rule is an application to the relevant administration followed by a full remedy action in the administrative courts. The actual status of the institution must be determined. See competent court and steps before the action.
Is there a fixed amount of compensation for an anesthesia error?
No. Additional treatment, loss of earning capacity, need for care, the support relationship and non-pecuniary effects are assessed according to the file. The insurance limit is also not an automatic measure of the total loss. See pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.
Sources
- Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, in particular Arts. 49–56, 61, 72, 74, 76, 112, 115, 116, 147, 149, 502, 506.
- Patients' Rights Regulation, in particular Arts. 11, 15, 16, 18, 24, 31.
- Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, in particular Arts. 6, 10, 16, 107, 109, 190, 266, 279–293, 323, 334, 400.
- Consumer Protection Law No. 6502, Arts. 3, 68, 73, 73/A.
- Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, Arts. 7, 13, 16/4, 28, 58.
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Arts. 17, 125, 129/5.
- Law No. 657 on Civil Servants, Art. 13.
- Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Art. 1478.
- Law No. 1219, Art. 70 and supplementary Art. 12.
- Law No. 3359 on Health Services, supplementary Art. 18.
- Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes, Art. 18/A.
- Law No. 6698 on the Protection of Personal Data, Arts. 4, 6.
- Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law, Arts. 1, 24, 26, 34, 40, 48.
- Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004, Arts. 257–259.
- Law No. 7589, amendments to the TBK and HMK; provisional Art. 1/9–10; Official Gazette 31.07.2026, 33326.
- Turkish Society of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Frequently Asked Questions, explanations on monitoring, anesthesia outside the operating theatre and allergy testing.
- ASA, Standards for Basic Anesthetic Monitoring, amended 15.10.2025.
- ASA, Standards for Postanesthesia Care, amended 23.10.2024.
- Ali Galip Ayvat and Pınar Ayvat, "Anesthesia and Intensive Care Complaints in Ombudsman Decisions: Basic Problems and Recommendations", Ombudsman Akademik, 2025, no. 22, pp. 261–285.
- Yargıtay 3. HD, 08.05.2025, E. 2024/4075, K. 2025/2669.
- Yargıtay 3. HD, 30.04.2025, E. 2024/3459, K. 2025/2475.
- Yargıtay 3. HD, 17.07.2023, E. 2022/5227, K. 2023/2166.
- Yargıtay 11. HD, 15.12.2025, E. 2025/2821, K. 2025/7526.