Compensation for Hospital-Acquired Infection: The Legal Liability of the Hospital and the Doctor

Compensation may be claimed for a hospital-acquired infection; however, the development of an infection alone does not show that the hospital or the doctor is liable. Whether there was a concrete deficiency in preventing, detecting or treating the infection, the effect of that deficiency on the patient's loss, and whether the service was provided by a public or a private institution are assessed together. Even where infection is unavoidable, delayed intervention may aggravate the loss and give rise to separate liability. [1, 2, 6]

This guide has been prepared for patients and their relatives, and for physicians and administrators who assess the legal risks of health services. It deals with patient infections; occupational exposure of health workers and workplace accident claims require a different analysis. For the general framework, see the guide on how to bring a malpractice action. The legal review is current as of October 11, 2026. [22]

In what circumstances is a hospital infection considered malpractice?

What does the emergence of an infection in hospital prove?

The current regulation defines a healthcare-associated infection as an infection that developed during the provision of health services, which was not present at the time of admission and was not in its incubation period. This definition does not in itself establish liability for compensation. First the connection of the infection with the service is examined; then breach of duty, loss and causation. The fact that the agent may have come from the patient's own flora does not mean that the service was faultless in every respect; appropriate prevention and monitoring measures are still investigated. [1, 2, 8]

There is no legal rule that "if forty-eight hours have passed, the hospital is definitely liable". The initial symptoms, the admission examination, the time of sampling, when the culture result was finalized, the procedures performed and earlier treatment must be assessed together. The appearance of symptoms after discharge does not in itself eliminate the connection with the service. The application of clinical and surveillance criteria to a concrete case requires expertise; fault cannot be determined from a calendar calculation alone. [1, 7]

When does a complication defense matter?

Immunosuppression, prematurity, a serious underlying illness or a compulsory invasive procedure may increase the risk of infection. The hospital may argue that the risk materialized despite appropriate precautions; the doctor may argue that they responded to the symptoms in good time and in accordance with medical rules. The strength of this defense is measured by the patient-specific risk assessment and the records of the measures applied. Merely writing "complication" in the file is not an adequate explanation. [2, 8, 21]

Two separate questions must be asked: Could the development of the infection have been prevented; and, once it developed, could the loss have been reduced? Even if the answer to the first question is negative, there may be a delay at the second stage. Conversely, where a bad outcome occurred despite all precautions and appropriate treatment, compensation cannot be awarded merely on the basis of the outcome. The expert must explain which conduct caused which loss. [6, 8]

The hospital's obligations to prevent and manage infection

What did the 2025 regulation introduce?

The Regulation on Infection Control in Inpatient Healthcare Institutions (Yataklı Tedavi Kurumları Enfeksiyon Kontrol Yönetmeliği), published in the Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) No. 33111 on December 18, 2025, repealed the regulation of 2005. Establishment of an infection control committee is mandatory in public and private inpatient healthcare institutions within its scope. Written standards, staff training, surveillance, sterilization and disinfection practices, and monitoring of antimicrobial use policies are parts of institutional responsibility. [1]

Implementation of the committee's decisions, investigation of suspected outbreaks and supervision of high-risk areas are not merely a matter of producing documents. Ventilation, water, cleaning, laundry, waste and support services also fall within infection control. Management must take the measures required by the committee's decisions. Academic reviews also emphasize that effective control depends on managerial support, training, surveillance and practice operating together. [1, 21]

Certain staffing and organizational requirements of this regulation cannot be applied directly to past events. For example, an intervention in 2016 is assessed against the obligations and medical standards in force on the date of the event. The new regulation shows current institutional obligations; it cannot be assumed that a violation of a new provision existed in an old file. Moreover, the scope of the regulation for inpatient institutions should not be extended automatically to every outpatient health service. [1]

The doctor's duty and the hospital's organizational responsibility

For the physician, the assessment of patient-specific risks, the recognition of clinical change, the ordering of necessary tests and consultations, and appropriate treatment and referral decisions are important. For the hospital, sufficient organization, trained staff, safe equipment and environment, a record-keeping system and infection control practices are examined. Even where the physician's medical act was appropriate, an organizational deficiency of the institution must be assessed separately. [1, 2, 6]

A hospital cannot escape responsibility by saying that the service was performed by an employee. Depending on the concrete legal relationship, the liability of the employer under Article 66 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (TBK), particularly the working arrangements of the enterprise, the breach of contract under Article 112, and the acts of auxiliary persons under Article 116 may arise. Nevertheless, not every employee can be held personally liable for all consequences without identifying their area of responsibility and the concrete omission. Division of duties, duty rosters and intervention records make this distinction possible. [2]

From whom is compensation claimed, and how do consent and insurance change matters?

The distinction between public, private and university hospitals

In a private hospital, the operating company, which is a party to the treatment contract, and the physician with a concrete fault are assessed separately for liability. Where more than one person is liable for the same loss, the provisions on joint and several liability may apply; however, the patient cannot recover the same loss more than once. The trade name of the hospital should not be confused with the legal person that will be the defendant. [2]

For loss caused by health services connected with public duties, as a rule the route of full remedy action against the relevant administration is followed. A hospital affiliated with the Ministry of Health (Sağlık Bakanlığı) and a public university hospital may not correspond to the same administration. Recourse against a public official is a separate relationship. For foundation university-affiliated institutions, the competent court should not be determined merely by looking at the word "university" on the sign; the legal person providing the service and the relationship must be examined. [4, 11, 23]

Does the presence of the infection risk in the consent form prevent a claim?

Explaining the risk of infection is important for informing the patient. However, giving information about a risk does not mean that a lapse in sterilization or a delayed treatment has been accepted in advance. Valid consent and the performance of the duty of care are different obligations. The absence of consent also does not automatically bring all losses from every infection under the same legal ground; the alleged breach and the causal relationship must be established separately. [2, 3]

Compulsory professional liability insurance for physicians is not a system that guarantees without limit every organizational error of the hospital. The insured person, the coverage, the limits, and the periods for the event and for notification must be examined. Article 1478 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (TTK) provides for a direct claim against the insurer; for the part outside the insurance coverage, the position of the principal persons responsible is assessed separately. Review of the policy does not replace the monitoring of time limits for the hospital and the physician. [16, 17]

Which records are important in a hospital infection case?

The burden of proof and the documents held by the hospital

The general rule of proof is Article 190 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK). In a claim of breach of contract, under Article 112 of the TBK the debtor may have to prove that it was not at fault; this does not remove the patient's entire burden of proof as to breach, loss and causation. The defense of organizational arrangement under Article 66/3 of the TBK is also a special provision whose conditions are examined separately. The fact that the court has an ex officio power of investigation in administrative litigation does not make it unnecessary to particularize the claim. [2, 5, 11]

It is important that the patient does not rely only on the discharge summary. The discharge summary summarizes the treatment; on its own it may not show at which stage the infection gave symptoms, when the culture sample was taken, or the details of the measures applied. The request should specify the date range and the unit. The first creation and modification data of electronic records may also be requested to the extent necessary for the dispute. [3, 5, 6]

Information about other patients and the risk of loss of records

Similar infections in other patients during the same period may be important; however, this information does not give a right to freely obtain or publish other patients' health files. The court may be asked to order the production of the necessary records with appropriate confidentiality measures, where possible in a form stripped of identities. The special nature of health data and the need for proof should be balanced. [5, 6, 15]

Where there is a risk that records may be lost or that they will later become difficult to obtain, preservation of evidence suitable to the stage of the judicial process and the action is considered. In private law, the legal interest must be explained under Article 400 of the HMK. The non-submission of a document does not in every case create an automatic admission of fault; the court's production order, the explanations and the conditions of Articles 219 and 220 of the HMK are important. In administrative litigation, ex officio production of records and preservation of evidence are carried out within the framework of the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK). [5, 11]

How is an expert report reviewed? Two Council of State decisions

10th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 10. Daire): After an injection-related infection, the whole institution must be investigated

The decision dated October 23, 2025, E.2022/2653, K.2025/4798, concerns a claim of death from necrotizing fasciitis that developed after a medical intervention and an injection of medication. The earlier reports focused mainly on the physician's diagnosis and treatment conduct; on the basis of different reports, the court reached different conclusions. [6]

The Council of State considered it necessary to investigate whether other patients treated in the same environment at the same time had infections, the supervision of the relevant wards and the data of the infection control committee. A report was requested with the participation of a specialist in infectious diseases and clinical microbiology, examining the whole process and the claim of pain that did not subside. Overturning the rejection does not mean that compensation has definitively been won. The contribution of the decision is that it shows that a conclusion cannot be reached by an assessment limited to the physician without investigating the hospital's organization. [6]

10th Chamber of the Council of State: Examining only the intensive care period may not be sufficient

In the decision dated September 27, 2023, E.2021/7287, K.2023/4880, the treatment of a child in different hospitals and a serious health loss were examined. The Council of State stated that the earlier paediatric ward process and the hospital infection claims had not been sufficiently investigated, and gave a judgment quashing the decision. The fact that the intensive care unit of the last hospital was found appropriate did not by itself resolve the claims concerning the earlier period. [7]

In the expert opinions in the file, the time of sampling, the formation of the culture result and the possibility of contamination were discussed. These cannot be read as meaning that every positive culture is definitively a hospital-acquired infection. For the reader, the result is that the records before and after the referral should be brought together, that each period should be examined by the relevant specialties, and that the report should respond to concrete objections. [7]

What questions may be raised in an objection to the report?

The report should justify the probable source of the infection, the patient's initial risks, the compulsory precautions, their implementation and the effect of any delay on the outcome. It should be shown on which records the statement "it is a complication" or "there is no fault" is based. Where different branches and institutions are involved, an examination that reduces the matter to a single stage may be objected to. [5, 6, 7]

Under Article 281 of the HMK, within two weeks of service of the report, a request may be made to complete deficiencies, to give an explanation, or to appoint a new expert. Under the legal conditions, an additional period of at most two weeks may be requested by applying within the first period. An objection should identify the missing document, the contradictory finding and the unanswered question. A specialist opinion may also be submitted; the final legal assessment belongs to the court. [5]

Why can a compensation claim be rejected despite an infection?

Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi): Candida infection in a premature baby

In the decision dated April 7, 2026, E.2025/4493, K.2026/1922, a Candida infection that developed during the treatment of a premature baby, and later health problems, were assessed. The reports relied on found that the source of the infection could not be precisely distinguished; on the other hand, care, follow-up, treatment and management of the complication were appropriate, and no organizational fault was identified. The rejection of the action was upheld. [8]

This decision does not mean that every loss suffered by a premature patient is to be regarded as ordinary. The uncertainty of the source is not in itself the hospital's justification; it was assessed together with findings on the appropriateness of the concrete care. In a similar claim, the claimant must be able to show a missing precaution or a delay that could have led to a different outcome; the hospital must be able to explain its practices with records. [8]

Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber: Treatment in more than one hospital and causation

The decision dated June 24, 2025, E.2024/2508, K.2025/3512 concerns claims of infection relating to the treatment and death of twin newborns in different health institutions. In the expert evaluations in the file, no link was established between the acts of the defendants and the loss that would give rise to liability; the judgment of rejection was upheld. [9]

Treatment in more than one hospital does not allow all institutions to be treated as a single defective process. It must be shown what happened in each period and which conduct affected the outcome. The claimants' allegation of a high infection rate and the hospital's defense that there was no outbreak must also be kept apart; statements of the parties should not be presented as the court's definitive finding of fact. [9]

Which losses and interest may be claimed?

Pecuniary loss, non-pecuniary loss and the claims of relatives

Compensation is not a fixed sum determined by the name of the infection or merely by a percentage in the report. The additional loss caused by the faulty conduct must be isolated. Treatment costs that would have been needed in any event are not treated as the same as expenses arising from the infection. Loss of income, need for care, working capacity and the personal effects of the event are assessed through documents and expert review. [2]

Under Articles 53 to 56 of the TBK, in the event of death, funeral expenses and loss of support may arise; in bodily injury, losses relating to treatment, earnings and economic future may arise. It cannot be said that the patient's relatives may make claims in every event and to the same extent. The patient's own claims and the personal claims of relatives must be set out separately. An allegation that the patient contributed to the increase of the loss can only be examined in light of the concrete conduct and its effect. [2]

Why should the changes of July 31, 2026 be taken into account?

The amendment to Article 55 of the TBK made by Law No. 7589 introduces special rules on interest and on prior payments in compensation for reduction or loss of working capacity and for loss of support. The regulation provides for statutory interest from the date of the event for a past period whose income is known, and from the date of the decision for a period whose income is unknown. It also separately provides for the proportionate offsetting, against compensation to be determined by reference to the date of payment, of amounts paid before the investigation for performance began for these compensations. [2, 14]

The transitional provision is decisive: the new Article 55 of the TBK applies to unlawful acts or harmful events occurring after its entry into force. For earlier events, the former text applies. For this reason, it is incorrect to apply the same starting date for interest to all heads of claim merely by looking at the date of the action. Non-pecuniary damages and the other heads must also be assessed separately on their own legal grounds. [2, 14]

Where is the action brought, and which time limits apply?

Jurisdiction, mediation and prior application to the administration

If private health services are of the nature of a consumer transaction, consumer jurisdiction is assessed. According to the monetary limits and exceptions in the law, the route of the Consumer Arbitration Committee (Tüketici Hakem Heyeti) or the consumer court may arise. In a consumer court, mediation as a condition precedent to the action must be examined under Article 73/A of the Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 (TKHK), with its scope and exceptions. The same route cannot be applied to every health dispute without examining the relationship and the parties. [12, 13]

In a loss caused by an administrative act arising from public service, a prior application to the relevant administration is required under Article 13 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK). The one-year period from learning of the loss and, as a rule, the five-year period from the act must be observed together. The general period for bringing an action is sixty days from service of the rejection decision or from the end of the thirty-day period of silence. Where the loss was learned of late and the question of the starting point arises, the matter must be examined in light of the concrete facts; a general table does not replace the calculation of the individual period. [11]

Why can time limits not be explained by a single number?

Ordinary complaints to the hospital, an application through the Presidency Communication Centre (CİMER), insurance correspondence or a criminal complaint do not in themselves suspend any of these periods. In mediation as a condition precedent to the action, the effect of the law on the period exists; it must be correctly determined to which application it applies. The existence of different legal grounds for the same event does not mean that any period considered favorable may be chosen without conditions. [2, 11, 13]

If the amount of compensation cannot be determined at the outset

The amendment that entered into force on July 31, 2026 repealed Article 107 of the HMK. Article 109/4 of the HMK provides that, in a partial action, the claim may be increased once until the end of the investigation, and that for the increased part the limitation period is deemed interrupted on the date of the action. For actions brought earlier, however, the former Article 107 continues to apply under Article 1/10 of the transitional provisions of Law No. 7589. It is therefore not correct to carry over into every file the former explanation of an "action for an uncertain receivable". [5, 14]

This amendment relates to private law proceedings. In an administrative full remedy action, the procedure for increasing the claim is examined separately. Appeal and cassation remedies must also be assessed by reference to the type and date of the decision and the applicable monetary limits; it cannot be assumed that every file will necessarily be reviewed by the Court of Cassation or the Council of State. [5, 11, 14]

Criminal liability, costs and preparation of the application

An actual criminal decision given for a sterilization deficiency

In the decision of the Court of Cassation, 12th Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 12. Ceza Dairesi), dated October 30, 2014, E.2013/27947, K.2014/21434, loss of sight after cataract surgery, problems in other patients operated on the same day, and culture findings were examined together. The decision assessed findings on deficiencies in sterilization and disinfection and the duties of the staff; the convictions were upheld subject to some legal corrections. [10]

This is not a decision on the amount of compensation. It is important in linking a common cause and cases from the same period to concrete records. Criminal liability is personal; being part of a team alone is not a ground for conviction. In addition, for health professionals within the scope of the additional Article 18 of Law No. 3359 (Sağlık Hizmetleri Temel Kanunu), authorization for investigation and special procedures may arise. This authorization process is not a precondition of the compensation action in every case. The effect of the criminal file on the civil action is assessed under the distinctions of Article 74 of the TBK. [2, 18]

Litigation costs, interim payment and collection

Expert examination, expert opinions, service and representation costs should be planned from the outset. The existence of an exemption from court fees in favour of consumers does not mean that all litigation costs disappear. Legal aid may be considered where the statutory conditions are met. In private law, for an interim payment under Article 76 of the TBK, convincing evidence showing the merit of the claim and economic need are required; payment is not automatic. Precautionary attachment (ihtiyati haciz) is also subject to separate conditions under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu). [2, 5, 12, 20]

Obtaining a decision and collecting the money are different stages. For private persons and insurers, the enforceable judgment, the scope of the guarantee and the conditions of enforcement are assessed; for the administration, the implementation of the decision under Article 28 of the Administrative Procedure Law and the payment procedure are assessed. The effect of lodging a legal remedy on enforcement must be examined separately. For this reason, when an application is made, the focus should be not only on the allegation of fault but also on the correct debtor and the heads of claim. [11, 16, 20]

A patient coming from abroad and the preparation of the file

For a foreign patient, receiving treatment in Türkiye does not alone determine the law applicable to every dispute or the competent court. The special conditions of a consumer contract, choice of law, the connection with a tort, international jurisdiction and exceptions for security are examined under the Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK). Translation of additional treatment documents abroad, proof of expenses and a service plan should also be prepared. [19]

Before making an application, the following sequence may be followed:

1. Record separately the intervention, the first symptom, culture, change of treatment, referral and the dates of learning.
2. Request the complete patient file, the relevant electronic records and the loss documents.
3. Identify the legal person providing the service, the physician, any insurance policy and the competent judicial route.
4. Consider the need to request the institution's records from the court and to preserve evidence.
5. Check separately the time limit, prior application, mediation and method of quantifying each claim.

Conclusion

What is decisive in a hospital infection file is which deficiency in prevention or treatment the bad outcome can be linked to. The patient's initial condition, the institution's infection control system and the interventions after the infection developed must be examined together. Verified decisions show that an incomplete investigation may be a ground for quashing, and that where appropriate care or a causal link cannot be established, the claims may be rejected.

The process of seeking a remedy should not be conducted on the basis only of a discharge summary or a single expert conclusion. Records should be gathered in good time, the correct liable party and judicial route should be identified, and the statutory distinctions depending on the date of the event and the date of the action should be observed. A sound file does not stop at describing the existence of the infection; it connects the obligation, the breach and the loss through concrete facts.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the development of an infection after surgery enough to win a case?

No. A concrete breach of duty, the loss and the link between them are assessed. A distinction must be drawn between an infection that developed despite appropriate precautions and a preventable infection or a delayed intervention. For details, see the section on complication assessment.

If an infection is discovered after discharge, can the hospital be liable?

It can. The later appearance of symptoms does not by itself break the connection. Admission findings, the procedure, the time of sampling and the subsequent course are assessed together by specialists. See the time at which the infection emerged.

If the consent form mentions infection, can compensation not be claimed?

It can be claimed. Explaining a risk does not mean that careless practice has been permitted. Consent and the duty of care are examined separately. See consent and liability.

Must the hospital hand over the files of other patients?

The health data of other patients cannot be shared freely. It is possible to request the necessary information through the court, with regard to confidentiality and data minimization. See records relating to other patients.

When an expert says there is no fault, does the case necessarily end?

No. If there are missing records, unanswered questions or scientific contradictions, a reasoned objection may be made in time. The court assesses the report together with other evidence. See objection to the report.

Can one wait five years for a state hospital?

No. The one-year learning period and the general five-year limit under Article 13 of the Administrative Procedure Law are considered together; the period for an action following the prior application to the administration is also monitored separately. See prior application to the administration.

In the event of death due to infection, may only heirs make claims?

No. Claims for loss of support and for non-pecuniary damages of relatives depend on their own conditions. Heirship, actual support relationship and closeness are not the same concepts. See claims of relatives.

What is to be done if the amount of compensation is unknown at the first application?

The appropriate method of claim is determined by reference to the judicial route and the date of the action. In private law, the amendment of 31 July 2026 and the transitional provision for earlier actions are important. See where the amount cannot be determined at the outset.

Sources and legal bases

1. Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete). Regulation on Infection Control in Inpatient Healthcare Institutions (Yataklı Tedavi Kurumları Enfeksiyon Kontrol Yönetmeliği), December 18, 2025, No. 33111; in particular Articles 2, 4–13, 16–18. Official text.
2. Mevzuat Information System. Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (Türk Borçlar Kanunu); in particular Articles 49–56, 61, 66, 72, 74, 76, 112, 115–116, 146–149, 502, 506. Current text.
3. Mevzuat Information System. Regulation on Patients' Rights (Hasta Hakları Yönetmeliği), Official Gazette (RG) August 1, 1998/23420; in particular Articles 15–18, 23–24, 31. Regulatory text.
4. Mevzuat Information System. Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye No. 2709 (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Articles 17, 56, 125, 129. Current text.
5. Mevzuat Information System. Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu); in particular Articles 109, 190, 199, 219–220, 266, 279, 281–282, 293, 323, 334, 400. Current text.
6. Council of State, 10th Chamber (Danıştay 10. Daire), October 23, 2025, E.2022/2653, K.2025/4798. Ministry of Justice decision text.
7. Council of State, 10th Chamber (Danıştay 10. Daire), September 27, 2023, E.2021/7287, K.2023/4880. Ministry of Justice decision text.
8. Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi), April 7, 2026, E.2025/4493, K.2026/1922. Ministry of Justice decision text.
9. Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi), June 24, 2025, E.2024/2508, K.2025/3512. Ministry of Justice decision text.
10. Court of Cassation, 12th Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 12. Ceza Dairesi), October 30, 2014, E.2013/27947, K.2014/21434. Ministry of Justice decision text.
11. Mevzuat Information System. Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu); in particular Articles 2, 7, 13, 16, 20, 28, 31, 45–46, 58. Current text.
12. Mevzuat Information System. Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection (Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun), Articles 3, 68, 73, 73/A. Current text.
13. Mevzuat Information System. Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Article 18/A. Current text.
14. Mevzuat Information System. Law No. 7589 on Amendments to Certain Laws on the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary (Yargının Etkin ve Verimli İşlemesine Yönelik Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun), RG July 31, 2026/33326; in particular Provisional Article 1/9–10 and Article 26. Official text.
15. Mevzuat Information System. Law No. 6698 on the Protection of Personal Data (Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu), Articles 4, 6. Current text.
16. Mevzuat Information System. Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (Türk Ticaret Kanunu), Articles 1473, 1478. Current text.
17. Mevzuat Information System. Law No. 1219 on the Practice of Medicine and Related Professions (Tababet ve Şuabatı San'atlarının Tarzı İcrasına Dair Kanun), Additional Article 12. Current text.
18. Mevzuat Information System. Law No. 3359 on Basic Health Services (Sağlık Hizmetleri Temel Kanunu), Additional Article 18. Current text.
19. Mevzuat Information System. Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun), Articles 1, 24, 26, 34, 40, 48. Current text.
20. Mevzuat Information System. Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu); judgment enforcement and Articles 257–259. Current text.
21. Öztürk, Recep. "Organization in the Prevention and Control of Health Care-Associated Infections" ("Sağlık Hizmeti İlişkili İnfeksiyonların Önlenmesi ve Kontrolünde Organizasyon"). Klimik Journal (Klimik Dergisi), 2026; 39(2):72–85. DOI:10.36519/kd.2026.5594. Article.
22. Güneş & Güneş Law Firm (Güneş & Güneş Hukuk Bürosu). "What Is a Malpractice Action? How Is a Malpractice Action Brought? What Are the Consequences of a Malpractice Action?" ("Malpraktis Davası Nedir? Malpraktis Davası Nasıl Açılır? Malpraktis Davasının Sonuçları Nedir?"). General guide.
23. Mevzuat Information System. Law No. 657 on Civil Servants (Devlet Memurları Kanunu), Article 13. Current text.