In short
A claim of paralysis after surgery for a lumbar disc herniation is not treating the loss of strength after the incision as fault of itself. The same finding may also have stood before the incision. The place looked at in the file is the neurological examination before the operation, the interval between vertebrae written as opened, and the first examination after waking. An amount of damages and statistics are not in this article.
The examination before the incision
In a person who comes for a disc operation, pain, numbness or weakness may already have been written. The operation note cannot erase this old finding. If the earlier examination said movement of the ankle was present, and on leaving it said it was absent, the difference is in these two sentences. If there is no earlier examination at all, the sentence that an operation was done does not prove the difference. The record is read from the file requested with an application. A copy is obtained through the patient record.
A missing page is shown in the petition. A gap that is shown does not turn an old paralysis into a new paralysis. If the two examinations conflict, the date is kept. If there is no date, which came first is not chosen from memory. The family's words that "they were walking before the operation" do not stand in for a document if there is no written examination. The document is the examination note itself.
The interval between vertebrae that was opened
In spinal surgery the level is whether the interval marked on the film and the interval in the note are the same. Mixing right and left sits in the article on the wrong side. In the lumbar spine the question is often not right and left, but the opening of one interval above or one below. A conflict of level does not of itself explain the paralysis. The link between the paralysis and the level is not built before the image and the examination are read together.
This reading is work for an expert. How the report is debated sits in the article on the expert report. If the report does not write the interval on the film and the interval in the note, what is missing is not the result but the level line. The missing line is marked in the petition. The mark does not erase the remaining sentences of the report.
Which examination is separated
The neurological note before the operation, the examination on waking and the level that was opened are read side by side. A poor outcome being severe does not of itself prove that the earlier examination was fault. The address of the Çankaya office does not change the hospital where the operation was done or the competent authority. The authority is read from the institution's own document of the admission.
An unnecessary incision and a new finding
Whether the operation was necessary at all sits in the article on an unnecessary operation. The level can also be missed in a necessary operation. An old paralysis can also stand as it was in an unnecessary operation. The two questions can come side by side in the same petition. The general list after an operation is the subject of another article. This record is not a summary of that list. The summary does not take the place of the earlier examination.
The indication document looks at whether the film and the complaint stood before the decision to operate. If there is no document, the words "it was necessary" do not count as a record. Even when the document is there, the level is read separately. The indication does not close of itself because the level is correct. A wrong interval does not close because there is an indication either. The two lines are two questions.
The first note on waking
The first examination after waking carries the state of strength and sensation at that hour. If that note is absent, the words "it was not holding when they woke" do not take the place of the operation note. If there is a note, it comes side by side with the earlier examination. If the same sentence stands in both notes, a new paralysis is not built. If the sentence has changed, the changed word is marked. If there is no mark, the claim stays general.
If the minutes show who looked, and at what time, that line speaks. If there are no minutes, the nursing handover does not of itself pass into the place of the physician's note. If both exist, the conflicting time is kept. If the discharge summary carries the later summary, the contemporaneous note is kept. The summary does not become a decision that fills the paralysis line afterwards. A numerical rate is not built.
If the note on waking and the discharge summary do not carry the same word, the contemporaneous note is kept. The note that is kept is placed beside the earlier examination. An earlier note that is not placed does not by itself build a claim of a new paralysis. A claim that is not built is not treated as having explained the conflict of level either. An explanation that is not counted has not changed the interval on the film either.
Conclusion
Loss of strength after a lumbar disc is read from the earlier examination, the level that was opened and the first examination on waking. A poor outcome is not fault by itself. An Ankara lawyer builds this distinction from the note on the file. The framework is on the health law page. There is no promise of an outcome.
The basis is Law No. 1219 and the Patient Rights Regulation.