A claim for compensation by a person harmed by a misdiagnosis, faulty treatment or delayed intervention at a public hospital is, as a rule, directed at the administration that runs the health service. The general route is to apply for compensation to the competent administration and, if the claim is rejected, to bring a full remedy action before the administrative court. Filing a complaint with hospital management, filing a criminal report with the prosecutor and applying for compensation serve different functions. Doing one does not automatically satisfy the conditions of another. [1, 2]
On timing, the basic framework is: an application to the administration within one year of learning of the harm and, as a rule, within five years of the act; if the administration does not respond, an implied rejection after 30 days; and then, as a general rule, 60 days to file the action. Late-emerging harm, filing with the wrong branch of the judiciary and service of notices may affect the calculation. This guide explains these distinctions on the basis of the legislation reviewed and the full texts of official decisions as of 11 October 2026. [2, 6, 7]
Who Is Sued for a Doctor Error at a Public Hospital?
Treatment at a public hospital is, in most cases, the performance of a public health service. Article 125 of the Constitution regulates the administration's obligation to pay for harm arising from its own acts and transactions. For compensation claims based on fault connected with the performance of duties, Article 129(5) of the Constitution and Article 13 of Law No. 657 are also taken into account. For this reason, naming only the doctor as the defendant may not be the correct starting point in a public hospital case. [1, 3]
Ministry of Health, University and City Hospital Distinction
A claim arising from a service provided at a state hospital under the Ministry of Health is, as a rule, directed at the Ministry. A claim arising from a service at a state university hospital is directed at the relevant university legal entity, through its rectorate. The hospital chief physician's office (başhekimlik) is in every case not a defendant with its own legal personality. The administration to which the hospital belongs, and the body that actually carried out the service on the date of the event, must be determined in light of the organizational structure at that time. [1, 3, 10]
The fact that a private company operates the building of a city hospital (şehir hastanesi) does not turn all medical service disputes into private law lawsuits. However, whether the harm arose from a medical intervention or from another service, and which person or administration undertook that service, must be examined separately. In hospitals where there is joint use and cooperation, a sign on the building alone is not sufficient. [8, 10]
A foundation university hospital (vakıf üniversitesi hastanesi) and a private company hospital cooperating with a university do not have the same legal structure. Academic studies show that this distinction gives rise to disputes over jurisdiction. The public hospital route described in this article should not be applied to all "university hospitals" without examining the nature of the institution. [10]
Can a Direct Compensation Action Be Brought Against a Public Doctor?
Fault in performing a service and personal conduct that can be separated from public duty are not assessed in the same way. An allegation that the conduct constituted a crime does not, by itself, remove its connection with the public service. Compensation for medical treatment carried out in the course of duty and the criminal liability of the health worker are examined separately. Whether the administration may seek recourse against the staff member for compensation it has paid is also a different question from the patient's initial claim. [1, 3, 11]
How Is Service Fault Determined?
Service fault may arise where a public service does not function at all, functions late or does not function as required. In addition to a faulty diagnosis and treatment, the organization of on-call duty, delays in a necessary referral, equipment shortages, lapses in monitoring and hospital safety are also considered. For liability, the alleged failure, the harm and the causal link between them must be made concrete. A failed treatment alone does not give rise to a right to compensation. [8, 9]
The administration may argue that the intervention complied with medical rules, that the harm arose from the natural course of the illness, or that the same result would have occurred with an appropriate intervention. This defense cannot be answered merely by pointing out that the outcome was serious. Which finding was missed and when, which step was delayed and how that affected the harm should be discussed on the basis of the records.
Does a Complication Claim End the File?
A complication may be an unwanted outcome that can occur even with appropriate medical practice. However, the occurrence of a risk and the management of that risk are separate issues. Measures to prevent the risk, the explanation given to the patient, recognition of the developing finding and the timing of the intervention should be examined. A signed consent form does not make a faulty practice lawful, and an adverse result alone does not prove that consent was invalid. [5, 9]
It cannot be concluded that, where the patient bears no fault, all harm is automatically paid by the State. The file must examine service fault and causation. If a different basis of liability is asserted, the file should separately explain how it applies to the concrete case. [9]
Real Decision: Hospital Safety and the Patient's Contribution to the Harm
In its decision of 14 January 2025, E.2024/3260, K.2025/141, the 10th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay) examined a fall from height by a patient who was being treated in a psychiatry ward and was being taken for a test. The Chamber assessed the staff's negligence and the failure to take preventive measures against the high drop as part of service fault. However, it also examined the patient's conduct as a contribution to the harm and, in the concrete case, accepted 50 percent contributory fault. [8]
The decision quashed the regional administrative court's judgment and required that the regulation applied in calculating permanent disability be chosen in line with the date of the event. Presenting the compensation amounts in the decision as settled payments or as a tariff for similar files is therefore incorrect. The lesson for readers is that hospital organization and the conduct of the harmed person are examined together; the rate in the decision cannot be applied automatically to other patients. [8]
How to Apply to the Administration Before Filing a Lawsuit
In claims for harm arising from administrative acts under Article 13 of Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), the relevant administration must be asked to remedy the right before an action is filed. In a claim for compensation for a medical intervention, this application means explaining the event and requesting that the harm be remedied. A letter asking only that the physician be examined for disciplinary purposes is not the same as an application containing a compensation claim. [2]
The content and attachments of the application should clarify the following points:
- The applicant's identity, address, authority to represent, and the capacity of each claimant.
- The hospital, intervention and follow-up dates, and a short chronology of the event.
- The procedure or omission alleged to be wrong, and the harm it caused.
- A separate statement of pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation claims, with amounts where they can be determined and a request for interest.
- Existing medical records, expense documents, and the missing records to be requested.
- The signature, the list of enclosures and a record showing that the application reached the administration.
If the future consequences of the harm cannot yet be calculated, this should be stated, and the existing claims should be framed as clearly as possible. A general sentence reserving rights should not be assumed to protect every claim and time limit. In an application made on behalf of a child, statutory representation must be addressed. Where the person has died, heirship must be distinguished from the person's own independent right to compensation. [2, 4]
Are Patient Rights Unit, CİMER and Prosecutor Applications Sufficient?
The name of the application or the electronic channel used is not decisive by itself. What matters is that the text reaches the relevant administration, contains the compensation claim together with the event, and that its date can be proven. An application to the patient rights unit may lead to a review of the health service, but not every complaint is an application for compensation within the meaning of İYUK Article 13. For an application to the Presidential Communication Center (CİMER) as well, the content and whether it reached the relevant administration should be checked separately. [2, 5]
A criminal report to the prosecutor aims at investigating criminal liability. Filing such a report does not automatically stop the administrative application and filing deadlines. The permission process of the Professional Responsibility Board (Mesleki Sorumluluk Kurulu) for a criminal investigation is not a general precondition for a full remedy action. [2, 11]
What Happens if a Lawsuit Is Filed Without a Prior Application?
In a lawsuit filed without satisfying the requirement to apply to the administrative authority first, the court may, under İYUK Articles 14 and 15, examine the infringement of that requirement (idari merci tecavüzü) and decide that the petition be sent to the competent administrative authority. The law provides that in this case the date of filing with the court is treated as the date of application to the administration. However, this mechanism does not in every case restore time limits that have already passed. Sending the petition to the administration is also not a decision on the merits awarding compensation. [2]
Application and Filing Deadlines Against a Public Hospital
The table below shows the general framework for an administrative action file in which no special circumstance exists. Service documents, records of when the harm was learned and the date of the event must be reviewed before the final day is calculated. The application deadline, the administration's response period and the deadline for filing a court action are separate.
| Stage | General deadline and starting point | Matter to note |
|---|---|---|
| Application to the administration | 1 year from learning of the harm; as a rule, 5 years from the act | When the harm and the administrative nature of the act were learned may be disputed. |
| Administration does not respond | 30 days after the application | Silence produces an implied rejection; the administration is not awaited indefinitely. |
| Lawsuit after express rejection | Generally 60 days from the day after service of the rejection decision | A partial rejection may also require a lawsuit for the rejected part of the claim. |
| Lawsuit after implied rejection | Generally 60 days from the end of the 30-day period | The effect of a later response is assessed separately. |
| Lawsuit after the wrong judicial branch | 30 days under İYUK Article 9, from the day after the decision declining subject-matter jurisdiction becomes final | The deadline of the first application and the exception in İYUK Article 13(2) are examined together. |
Public holidays, suspension of work and the date on which service legally takes effect are assessed separately under the service provisions relating to İYUK Article 8. There is no six-year period made up of "one year plus five years". Likewise, it is wrong to count 90 days from the transaction date in every file, since the starting points of the 30-day and 60-day stages are different. [2]
When Does the Time Limit Start If the Harm Was Learned Later?
Some harm is noticed immediately after an intervention. In other cases, the cause of the bodily outcome or its connection to the administrative service may be understood only later. In discussing the starting point, not only the date of the last report matters, but also what information the patient already had. Earlier complaints, assessments by other hospitals, reports and correspondence may show the date of learning. [6, 7]
In the Constitutional Court's decision in Mehmet Taşkın Dal, Application No. 2017/18236, 29 September 2020, the Court examined the starting point of the time limit in an action brought by a person left paralyzed after surgery, where the surgery date had been taken as the starting point. The Court found it disproportionate to adopt that date without assessing when the applicant learned of the administrative nature of the act, and held that the right of access to a court had been violated. The retrial ruling is not a prior determination that the physician was at fault or that all compensation claims are accepted. [6, §§ 47–61]
The limit on the other side is shown by the Constitutional Court's decision in Özkan Fuçucu, Application No. 2021/1433, 13 March 2025. The applicant filed the action years after the first operation and did not explain why the harm was learned later or what circumstance prevented a timely application. The Court concluded that the assessment of the time limit in that file did not violate the right of access to a court. [7, §§ 40–43]
Read together, these two decisions do not establish a general rule that the time limit restarts whenever a final report is obtained. A late-learning claim should be documented by explaining which new information was obtained on which date and why it could not have been obtained earlier. Waiting for an expert report or the outcome of a criminal investigation is not a safe way to preserve time limits for harm that was already known. [6, 7]
If a Lawsuit Was First Filed in the Civil Courts
Once the decision declining subject-matter jurisdiction becomes final, the transfer route under İYUK Article 9 is assessed: the date of filing with the court lacking jurisdiction is treated as the date of filing with the administrative court. İYUK Article 13(2) provides that the prior application requirement is not applied again in full remedy actions in this situation. However, if the first action was also filed late, the decision declining jurisdiction does not remove all time problems. The date of finality must be documented and the deadline for the new action monitored independently. [2, 7]
Which Medical Records and Evidence Should Be Gathered?
The Patients' Rights Regulation (Hasta Hakları Yönetmeliği) governs the right to examine and obtain copies of files and records relating to a patient's health. e-Nabız records may be a useful starting point, but they should not be assumed to contain the whole hospital file. Signed consent, detailed operation and anesthesia records, the medication administration chart or consultation times may need to be requested separately. [5]
| Matter to examine | Main records | What the records may show |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnosis and delay | Admission, triage, examination, imaging and consultation records | When findings were seen and evaluated |
| Intervention and follow-up | Surgery, anesthesia, medication, nursing observation and referral records | The nature of the procedure and the response to deterioration |
| Information | Procedure-specific consent, interview and information records | How risks and alternatives were explained |
| Organization | On-call duty, equipment, staffing and incident reports | Structural or operational failures in the service |
| Harm and expenses | Health board report, income records, invoices and care documents | Loss of working capacity, economic loss and need for care |
An applicant who cannot obtain a document should state which institution holds it and ask the court to obtain it. Requests should be made without delay, so that records kept for a short period are preserved. The court's power to investigate on its own initiative does not remove the party's duty to explain the event and the claim. Health records should be shared only with authorized persons and bodies, and third parties' information should not be taken out of the file unnecessarily. [2, 5]
How Should an Expert Report Be Approached?
In an expert examination it is important that the relevant specialties are included, that all records are assessed, and that questions are answered with reasoned responses. In a report that concludes "there was no fault", one should check whether allegations of diagnostic delay, referral or complication management were addressed separately. A counter-report or objection should show the records that were not examined and the contradiction, rather than simply rejecting the result. [2, 8, 9]
For example, in a file where a lapse in follow-up is alleged, a report that examines only the technical correctness of the surgery may not resolve the whole dispute. In calculating permanent loss of working capacity, the regulation must also be chosen to suit the date of the event and the person's circumstances. Council of State decision No. 2025/141 is a concrete example of this second problem. Whether the report may be the basis of the judgment is ultimately for the court to decide. [8]
Which Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Compensation Can Be Claimed?
In cases of bodily harm, treatment and rehabilitation expenses, loss of earnings, loss of working capacity, impact on the economic future and necessary care expenses may arise. In the event of death, funeral expenses, treatment and earnings losses before death, and loss of support are examined. In determining the scope of these items, the distinctions in Articles 53 and 54 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (Law No. 6098) also guide the analysis, while the liability of the public administration is assessed within administrative law. [4, 8, 9]
Payment of an expense, its necessity and its connection to the event must be documented. For future care and income loss, the assumptions must be justified, and double payment for the same harm must be avoided. A claim for loss of support is not the same as a share of an inheritance: whether the person benefited, or would have been expected to benefit, from the deceased's support is examined. The fact that someone is a relative does not mean that each relative has the same right to compensation. [4]
For non-pecuniary compensation, the degree to which bodily integrity was affected, the pain suffered, the characteristics of the event and the basis of liability are assessed. Serious bodily harm or death may also raise relatives' own non-pecuniary losses. The person making the claim and the effect of the event on that person should be explained separately; there is no fixed malpractice compensation tariff applicable to everyone. [4, 8, 9]
Real Decision: Why Was the Non-Pecuniary Claim Re-examined When the Pecuniary Claim Was Rejected?
The Council of State's 10th Chamber decision of 11 September 2025, E.2024/2019, K.2025/3764 concerns a patient left paralyzed after kidney stone surgery. Because the expert assessment found no fault in the medical interventions and no causal link between them and the resulting condition was established, the rejection of the pecuniary compensation was upheld. [9]
On the other hand, the Chamber quashed the part of the judgment rejecting non-pecuniary compensation, considering that the unexpected serious outcome occurred during the health service and that the patient was not given clear and accurate information about the causes of the harm. This does not mean that non-pecuniary compensation is payable for every complication. The decision shows that a review of the technical application, the duty to inform and the non-pecuniary claim cannot be dismissed on the same reasoning. [9]
It is also important that the file was first subject to a retrial following the Constitutional Court's decision in Mehmet Taşkın Dal. Remedying a violation of the right of access to a court and accepting the compensation on the merits are different stages. Being right on time limits does not mean that every category of harm will necessarily be accepted. [6, 9]
Can the Claimed Amount Be Increased Later?
Under İYUK Article 16(4), in a full remedy action the amount stated in the petition may be increased once, by paying the fee, until a final decision is given. This route gains importance especially when the pecuniary loss becomes clear through an expert examination. The timing of the right to increase and whether it has already been used should be monitored. This procedure does not add to the lawsuit a different harm that was never stated from the outset, or a claim of a different person. [2]
The determination and increase of non-pecuniary compensation should be assessed separately in light of case law on the nature of the claim. The type of interest and its starting date should also be requested expressly; it should not be assumed that the same date applies in every file. In the reviewed decision No. 2025/141, the date of the application to the administration was taken as the basis during the proceedings; this date is not an automatic result for every dispute. [2, 8]
How Does the Full Remedy Action Proceed?
In these actions arising from administrative acts, jurisdiction is in principle determined under İYUK Article 36 by the place where the service was provided or the act was carried out. The petition sets out the event, the legal grounds, the evidence, the requested outcome and the amount of compensation. Proceedings are conducted mainly in writing: files and records are gathered, defenses are taken and, where necessary, an expert examination is carried out. The request for a hearing and its conditions are assessed under İYUK Article 17. [2]
In this full remedy route against a public administration, the mandatory mediation regime for consumer disputes concerning private hospitals does not apply directly. An application under İYUK Article 13 and mediation are not the same procedure. Court fees, expert fees and notification costs are calculated according to the file and the current tariff. Legal aid may be requested where the conditions are met. For the rejected part of the claim, the risk of costs and an attorney fee award should also be assessed. [2]
Appeal, Cassation and Enforcement of the Decision
For decisions open to appeal (istinaf), the general period is 30 days from notification. Whether a further appeal on points of law (temyiz) is available is not determined only by the amount claimed. The conditions in İYUK Articles 45–46, the current monetary limits, the relevant time rules and the nature of the decision are assessed together. Under Law No. 7589 dated 16 July 2026, a route to appeal on points of law was introduced for some decisions in which the regional administrative court quashes the first-instance decision and issues a new one; the exceptions are listed separately. A single monetary limit taken from an old text should therefore not be relied on to conclude that a decision is final. [2]
Awarding compensation does not remove the need to monitor the collection stage. Under İYUK Article 28(2), the bank account number is notified to the defendant administration in writing, and payment must be made within the procedure and period prescribed by the article, starting from that notification. The general upper limit is 30 days. If payment is not made in time, the enforcement and execution routes under the general provisions are assessed. Filing an appeal and staying the enforcement of the decision are not the same thing. [2]
Conclusion
In a malpractice claim at a public hospital, the right course is not limited to describing the intervention considered faulty. Identifying the administration that provides the service, making a clear compensation application, monitoring the application and filing deadlines separately, gathering the medical records and substantiating each category of harm with its grounds all matter together.
Real decisions should be read in two directions. Applying a time bar without examining late knowledge of the harm may lead to a violation of rights; but if late knowledge is not substantiated, the application may be rejected. Likewise, service fault may arise from hospital organization, and pecuniary and non-pecuniary claims may end with different reasoning. Evaluating each file through its chronology, records and claims makes these distinctions visible.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should a doctor error at a public hospital be brought before a consumer court?
For compensation claims arising from public health services, the administrative application and a full remedy action before the administrative court are followed as a rule. The institutional structure of the hospital and the person actually providing the service must also be determined; rules for private hospitals should not be carried over directly. [1, 2, 10]
How many days should I wait after applying to the administration?
Under the current İYUK Article 13, if no response is given, an implied rejection occurs at the end of 30 days, and the general 60-day period for filing an action then runs. If an express rejection was served earlier, the period is assessed according to that service. [2]
Does a complaint to the patient rights unit preserve the time limit for a lawsuit?
Not every complaint is a claim for compensation. The content of the application, whether it reaches the relevant administration and its date should be examined. Compensation time limits should not be neglected in reliance on a petition that seeks only a disciplinary review or an explanation. [2, 5]
Can a full remedy action be filed before a criminal investigation ends?
Yes. Completion of the criminal investigation or permission from the Professional Responsibility Board is not a general precondition for this action. Records and reports in the criminal file may be useful, but it cannot be assumed that time limits are suspended automatically. [2, 11]
Does a disability report obtained later start a new one-year period?
Not in every case. It should be examined which harm or connection the new report reveals that was not previously known. If it appears that the patient already knew of the same harm, relying only on the date of the report may not be sufficient. [6, 7]
If pecuniary compensation is rejected, is non-pecuniary compensation necessarily rejected too?
No. The grounds for each claim are examined separately. In Council of State decision K.2025/3764, the rejection of pecuniary compensation was upheld, but the rejection of non-pecuniary compensation was quashed, among other reasons because the patient was not given clear and accurate information. This result does not apply automatically to every event. [9]
How long does a case take, and how much compensation is awarded?
The need for expertise, expert reports, the court's workload and legal remedies affect the duration. Compensation depends on the concrete harm, causation, the assessment of fault and the person's circumstances. A fixed period or amount cannot be stated without reviewing the file. [2, 8, 9]
Sources and legal bases
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Arts. 36, 125 and 129. Official text.
- Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), especially Arts. 3, 7–10, 13–17, 20, 28, 31, 36, 45–46, 52 and Supplementary Art. 1; text including amendments by Law No. 7589. Official text.
- Law No. 657 on State Civil Servants (Devlet Memurları Kanunu), Art. 13. Official text.
- Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), Arts. 53, 54 and 56. Official text.
- Patients' Rights Regulation (Hasta Hakları Yönetmeliği), especially Arts. 15–18, 23, 24 and 31. Official text.
- Constitutional Court, Mehmet Taşkın Dal, Application No. 2017/18236, 29 September 2020, especially §§ 47–61. Decision.
- Constitutional Court, Özkan Fuçucu, Application No. 2021/1433, 13 March 2025, especially §§ 40–43. Decision.
- Council of State (Danıştay) 10th Chamber, E.2024/3260, K.2025/141, 14 January 2025. Decision.
- Council of State (Danıştay) 10th Chamber, E.2024/2019, K.2025/3764, 11 September 2025. Decision.
- Oktay Alkan, "Determination of the Competent Court in Actions Against University Hospitals for Malpractice in Light of Supreme Court Decisions" (Yüksek Mahkeme Kararları Çerçevesinde Malpraktisten Kaynaklı Olarak Üniversite Hastanelerine Karşı Açılan Davalarda Görevli Mahkemenin Tespiti), T.C. Danıştay Dergisi, No. 158, July 2024, pp. 169–202; DOI: 10.29228/tcdanistay.25. Journal.
- Law No. 3359 on Basic Health Services (Sağlık Hizmetleri Temel Kanunu), Supplementary Art. 18. Official text.