An effective objection to an expert or Council of Forensic Medicine report must show which record, method or question the report failed to evaluate adequately. Saying only “we do not accept the report” does not provide a sufficient technical or legal explanation. In civil proceedings, the two-week period and the conditional possibility of additional time under Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (HMK), Article 281, must be taken into account. The procedure in criminal and administrative proceedings is determined separately. No report binds a judge merely because of the name of the institution that issued it, independently of all other evaluations. [1] [2] [3]
That a report is unfavourable does not by itself require a new report. However, a report that does not discuss important evidence, lacks sufficient expertise, or states its conclusion without reasons may be challenged in concrete terms as to whether it can be relied on in the judgment.
How is the expert’s role separated from the judge’s role?
Under HMK Article 266, expert examination is carried out where special or technical knowledge is required. The method chosen by the physician, patient selection, the clinical meaning of records and the mechanism of harm may require expertise. Whether the contract is a contract for work (eser sözleşmesi) or a mandate (vekâlet), and the legal liability and legal value of the evidence, are matters for the court to assess. [1]
Under HMK Article 282, the judge freely evaluates the expert opinion together with the other evidence. This does not mean that technical questions may be resolved by unexplained personal opinion. The court must state why it considers the report sufficient and how it has dealt with the material objections.
The Council of Forensic Medicine (Adli Tıp Kurumu) report is assessed within this same framework. Neither of the two approaches “A forensic medicine report is final and cannot be challenged” or “if a private expert report exists, the court must follow it” is correct.
How is the objection period determined?
For the general objection rules in civil cases, see objection to an expert report in civil litigation. For objection routes in criminal proceedings, see objection to an expert report in a criminal case.
Civil litigation under HMK Article 281
Parties may, within two weeks of service of the report, request that missing matters be completed, unclear points be explained or a new expert be appointed. If preparing the objection is very difficult or impossible, or special or technical work is required, an additional period of no more than two weeks may be requested once, by application made within the initial period. An additional period does not arise automatically; a court decision is required. [1]
The date of service is the starting point for calculating the period. In electronic notification, the moment the message reaches the phone and the date on which notification is legally deemed made may differ; the fifth-day rule in Article 7/a of Law No. 7201 on Notification must be considered. The last day should not be fixed solely from the SMS date without reviewing the notification record in the file. [4]
Within the period, it is important to set out at least the main objections and, where necessary, the request for an additional period. The possibility that a supplementary report may be ordered does not justify disregarding the time limit for the existing report.
Administrative jurisdiction and criminal proceedings
In administrative jurisdiction, the reference made by Article 31 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) to expert witnessing is reviewed together with the court’s notification and interlocutory decisions. In criminal proceedings, the period and procedure for objections to a report and for requests for a new examination under Article 67 of Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), are taken into account. The two-week rule of the HMK does not automatically apply to every criminal file. [2] [3]
It must also be determined whether the document is an evaluation in the prosecutor’s file, an expert report obtained by the court, or an expert opinion submitted by a party. The objection must be directed to the correct authority and framed within the correct scope.
Which questions should be asked to assess whether the report can be reviewed?
When preparing an objection, the list of documents on which the examination was based should be read before the conclusion section. Without knowing which records the experts saw, the adequacy of their conclusion cannot be assessed. If a critical document was never sent, the problem lies not only in the expert’s interpretation but may lie in the incomplete examination file.
| Examination area | Concrete objection question | Step that may be requested |
|---|---|---|
| Scope of documents | Were the anesthesia or follow-up records examined? | Obtaining the missing record and a supplementary examination |
| Expertise | Are all medical fields relevant to the dispute represented? | Participation of suitable specialists |
| Reasoning | Which finding does the conclusion rest on? | An explanation or a supplementary report |
| Causation | How were alternative causes excluded? | A reasoned comparison |
| Consent | Were the actual risk and the scope of the procedure assessed? | A review specific to the document |
| Aesthetic result | Was the agreed appearance investigated? | A technical assessment of the result commitment |
Reports should take account of current scientific literature. However, an event should be evaluated against the medical standard that applied at the time it occurred. The fact that a method developed later was not used in the past is not in itself an error. Conversely, the reason why a standard already known at the time was not applied must be explained.
Why might the “complication” conclusion alone be insufficient?
A report may state that the adverse outcome was a known risk. In addition, the measures needed to prevent the risk, patient-specific conditions, timely diagnosis and intervention, and the information provided to the patient must be assessed. Calling the outcome a “complication” does not make it unnecessary to examine delay in follow-up or shortcomings in disclosure.
A concrete objection may be framed as follows: “The report characterizes the developing nerve damage as a complication; however, it did not examine the effect on the outcome of the delay between the date the patient’s first complaint was reported and the date the patient was re-evaluated.” Such a sentence should be used with the actual dates and documents in the file. No delay or symptom that does not appear in the file should be assumed.
The opposing party may argue that there was no delay, or that the later intervention would not have changed the outcome. These defenses should also be put to the expert in the new examination. Rather than choosing one of two possibilities with certainty, the expert should give scientific reasoning based on the file.
In an aesthetic contract for work, the expert must also be asked about the promised result
In a contract for work (eser) with an aesthetic purpose, an explanation that the “surgical technique was correct” does not by itself resolve whether the agreed aesthetic result was achieved. The surgical plan, pre- and post-operative photographs, correspondence and any need for revision should also be assessed. The legal characterization belongs to the court, but an appropriate technical examination is needed to determine whether the promised appearance was achieved and what the medical aspect of the alleged defect is.
In the Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi) decision E.2024/1507, K.2025/1137, March 19, 2025, a report that treated asymmetry and scarring after eyelid aesthetic surgery as complications was not accepted as sufficient. The Chamber found it wrong to rely on a report that contained no assessment of the result obligation in the contract for work, and held that in the concrete file the compensation claims should be examined, with the defendants’ liability accepted. [5]
In the 6th Civil Chamber decision E.2023/1864, K.2024/4484, November 28, 2024, the assessment of the facelift result and of the numbness risk that was not included in the consent was important. These decisions support not limiting an objection to the claim that “the doctor was at fault”, and treating the result obligation, consent and management of complications as separate questions. [6]
By contrast, in the 6th Civil Chamber decision E.2023/3351, K.2024/4934, December 18, 2024, the dismissal judgment was upheld after the absence of marked deformity, the absence of any need for revision, the photographs and adequate information were assessed together. An objection must show a concrete deficiency that would change such an assessment; seeking a different result alone is not sufficient. [7]
How should missing records and conflicting reports be handled?
If a report draws a favourable conclusion from a record that does not exist, the basis for that conclusion must be questioned. For example, where the time of administration or the person who administered a treatment was not recorded, the assumption that all follow-up stages were properly carried out requires a separate explanation. The party responsible for the missing record, the possibility of completing it from other records, and its effect on the burden of proof must be assessed.
In the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM) decision Hasan Kamer, B.2018/11847, June 16, 2021, the fact that the duty to keep records rested with the institution, and a decision in line with the report without sufficiently examining the effect of the missing record on liability, were found problematic for effective judicial review. The decision supports making missing records visible in the assessment; it does not automatically determine a fault ratio. [8]
If two reports reach different conclusions, the points of conflict can be shown in a table: whether they looked at the same finding, whether different documents were used, whether a new examination was carried out, and whether a different standard was applied. Rather than saying “the reports conflict”, state which propositions are incompatible. Not every difference necessarily requires a new board, but a conflict that affects the outcome cannot be left unexplained.
How to obtain records is addressed in our article how to obtain patient files and medical records, and the burden of proof is addressed in our article how malpractice is proven.
When are an additional report, a new board and a party expert opinion useful?
An additional report may be sufficient to answer a missing question or to explain unclear reasoning. A new board may be requested where the composition of the experts is inadequate, there is a fundamental methodological problem, or a contradiction cannot be resolved. The request must explain which problem cannot be resolved with the existing board. A new report should not be presented as a right after every unfavourable report.
Under HMK Article 293, an expert opinion submitted by a party may help in framing technical objections. The opinion should clearly state the expert’s qualifications, the documents examined, the method and the scientific basis. Payment of the fee by a party does not automatically render the opinion worthless, and it does not make it conclusive evidence binding on the court. [1]
If there is an objection to the expert’s impartiality, its concrete grounds and any applicable special time limit must be assessed separately. An unfavourable report is not in itself evidence of partiality. Instead of personal accusations, the objection should show verifiable connections and events.
How should the request be framed in the objection petition?
For each objection, the relevant section of the report, the counter-document in the file and the reason why it affects the outcome should be stated. The procedure requested should then be written out clearly. For example, obtaining missing records, an additional report with specific questions, a new board of suitable experts, or an expert’s explanation at the hearing may be requested. [K1, Art. 281]
The request section should be ordered according to the file: first the completion of missing evidence, then the technical examination and resolution of contradictions. Separating the parts of the report that are accepted from those that are contested, rather than rejecting the whole report, makes the objection easier to understand. If the court rejects the objection, the matters that affected the outcome and the reasoning may be reconsidered through the appropriate remedy; an objection to a report and a legal remedy against the judgment are not the same procedure.
For the general litigation process, see how a malpractice lawsuit is filed. For the related service page, see medical malpractice and physician error lawsuits.
Conclusion
An effective objection to a report must be timely and based on the file. The examination should separately cover technical practice, consent, follow-up, causation and, in aesthetic contract relationships, the result obligation. The aim is not merely to obtain a new report, but to ensure that the technical assessment on which the judgment will rely is complete and reviewable.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a Council of Forensic Medicine report be challenged?
Yes. Where the applicable procedure and time limit are observed, a request for examination may be made by specifying the incompleteness, ambiguity or contradiction.
Does the two-week period apply to all files?
No. This period is part of the civil procedure rules under HMK Article 281. The relevant provisions and the court or prosecutor’s actions in administrative and criminal files must be examined separately.
Does a private expert opinion bind the court?
Not on its own. It is evaluated together with the other evidence, and it may be useful in framing the technical objection.
If an outcome is called a complication, can no other questions be asked?
Other questions can be asked. Prevention, information, follow-up and management of the complication must be examined separately.
What additional question should be put to the expert in an aesthetic operation?
Whether the agreed aesthetic result was achieved, and the technical aspect of the alleged defect, should be asked. This examination should not be limited to conformity with surgical technique alone.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (HMK), Articles 266, 272, 279, 281–282, 293. Legislation record.
- Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), Article 31. Legislation record.
- Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), Article 67. Legislation record.
- Law No. 7201 on Notification, Article 7/a. Official legislation.
- Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi), E.2024/1507, K.2025/1137, March 19, 2025. Full text — De Jure.
- Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi), E.2023/1864, K.2024/4484, November 28, 2024. Full text — De Jure.
- Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi), E.2023/3351, K.2024/4934, December 18, 2024. Full text — De Jure.
- Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM), Hasan Kamer, B.2018/11847, June 16, 2021, §§37–40. Full text — De Jure. Links may require a login session.