In short
When an expert report against the physician arrives, the place that is read is which act the fault sentence was tied to. The act may be the physician's own intervention, a step he omitted, or an intervention someone else carried out. The objection petition of the patient's side does not stand in for this reading. Because the report stands in the file, it cannot be treated as absent. The court assesses the opinion together with the other evidence. This assessment is not a promise that the report will be erased. There is no amount in this text.
This article answers the question of which act the sentence against the physician was written to. It does not answer the construction of the patient's objection petition. That construction stands in the record an expert report.
The act the fault was written to
The concluding paragraph is not enough on its own. Which intervention of which date, which note, or which omission the finding before the conclusion names as fault, that line is read. The sentence "the medical practice is faulty", if it does not show the act, is a conclusion that was read incompletely. An incomplete reading does not change the text of the report. The text stands in its place.
The physician puts, side by side with the record in the file, whether the sentence corresponds to his own operation note, his order, or his consultation. If the record was not mentioned in the report, the page that was not mentioned is not completed in this article. Completing it is not asking the expert for a new result either. The request is not the subject of this record.
If there is a question the court asked at the head of the report, whether the conclusion answers that question, or slides to a day that was not asked, is also read. The slide does not build that the sentence is wrong of itself. The slide shows which sentence the physician will look at. If the question that was asked is not in the file, the absence is not produced from the concluding paragraph. A question that is not produced does not have the rest of the report treated as absent. The report stands in its place.
If a date, an hour, or a document name appears in the findings section, that reference is read as the basis of the concluding sentence. If the reference shows the epicrisis, the operation note, the nurse's record, or the imaging report, the paper that is shown is opened separately. If the paper that is opened does not say the same thing as the sentence in the report, the difference is noted. The difference is not written as a ground for taking the report out of the file. The difference stands in the physician's own reading note. The reading note is not an observation page added later to the patient file. The note puts the existing sentence and the existing record side by side. It does not build a new clinical sentence.
Whose act
If the sentence against the physician carries the physician's name, it is asked whether the act is that physician's hand or decision. Another specialist's step in the operating room, the hour of a nurse's application, or a device record may have been written, in a single sentence, as the physician's act. A sentence that was melted together does not mean the physician accepted that line. Not accepting it does not mean the line will leave the file either.
The claim about the hospital's organisation is in the record a medical error in a private hospital. The list of opponents is in the record against whom it is filed. This record separates which of the names on the list the fault was written to the act of. Separating the names does not produce a head of compensation. The names of the heads are in the record heads of compensation. A figure is not carried here from there.
Two physicians' names may appear in the same report. One is the author of the operation note, the other is the name of the consultation or of the anaesthesia record. If the sentence names only one as fault, the name that was not named is not added to that sentence of itself. If the sentence names both, which act was written to whom is separated from the lines below. A joint sentence that is not separated does not turn the two names into a single hand. There is no assumption of a single hand in this text.
If a device printout, a nurse's hour, or a laboratory paper is mentioned in the report, the signature line of the paper that is mentioned is looked at as well. If the signature is not the physician's, the separation of whether the act was written to the physician's order, or to someone else's hour of application, stands. The separation does not erase someone else's line in the physician's favour. If the physician's own order stands, the order stands as well. The medical technique of the order is not recounted on this page. What is recounted is on which line the name stands.
The report stands
Article 282 of the Code of Civil Procedure writes that the judge assesses the expert's opinion freely, together with the other evidence. Free assessment is not the physician treating the report as absent. There is no promise of treating it as absent in this text. The report is not an operative part of a judgment either. The judgment is in the court's decision. Before the decision comes out, the sentence of the report does not write an amount.
A note sent to the expert so that the result changes is not part of this reading. The paper that is read is the report that entered the file. The letterhead and the signature line of the report are left in their place. A report left in its place does not mean the physician accepted every sentence as correct either.
If there is a second report, or a supplementary report, in the file, the first is not treated as having fallen away. The supplementary report may be narrowing or widening the earlier sentence. The two texts are read side by side. One is not pasted on top of the other and turned into a single result. The two texts that are not pasted are not used so that the physician chooses the sentence that suits him and treats the other as absent either. Both stand in the file. There is no promise of treating it as absent for the supplementary report either.
If one of the panel's signatures is missing, or if a member wrote a dissenting opinion, the dissenting opinion stands as a separate paragraph. The dissenting opinion does not erase the majority sentence. The majority sentence does not bring the dissenting opinion to the state of never having been written either. The physician ties whichever sentence is against him to the act. If there is a sentence in his favour, that is also read by which act it was written to. A sentence in his favour is not a promise that the sentence against him will be taken out of the file.
The patient's objection petition is separate
The patient's objection to the report is a separate petition built on a missing question and a record that was not read. The construction of that petition stands in the neighbouring record. The physician has not finished the reading of the act by pasting that petition onto his own page. The physician's question is this: which act was the sentence against him written to. How many days the objection lasted is not fixed in this text. The number is read from the service record and from the interim decision. The number is not written here.
Three things may stand in the physician's own reading note. The first is which paragraph of the report the sentence called fault is in. The second is in the record of which date the act that sentence mentioned appears. The third is whether the sentence was written to the physician's hand or to someone else's hour. This trio is not built on this page as the draft of a petition to be submitted to the court. What is built is how the paper will be read.
The sentence "the report cannot be taken as the basis of the judgment", written in the patient's lawyer's objection, is not the physician's sentence. That sentence is the request of the patient's side. The request does not erase the report from the file. If the physician copies the same sentence, he has not read the act line. A request that is not copied is not made a basis for the physician to disregard the report either.
The complication sentence
If the report says "complication", which act or which omission this word was tied to is read. If the word stands on its own, it is a characterisation that did not show the act. The characterisation is not put in the place of the fault sentence. If there is a fault sentence separately, the word complication does not erase that sentence. Both stand. This separation is not a promise that the court will not count the complication as fault. A separation that has no promise still shows that the two words are not the same sentence.
The physician puts the result named as a complication side by side with the sentence in his own note. If that result is not written in the note, the fact of its not being written is not added to the report. If the result mentioned in the report stands in the note under another name, the difference of name is read. The difference of name does not bring the result to the state of never having happened. The result stays under whichever name it stands with in the file. The report stays as well.
Where the report against the physician is read from
The fault sentence and the line on which the act is mentioned are put side by side. The report is not treated as absent, and the patient's objection petition is not copied in the physician's place. The office being in Çankaya does not change the panel that prepared the report. An amount and a statistic are not written.
If the supplementary report and the first report stand in the same file, both are read. The reading is not a letter having the panel write a new result. The letter is not the subject of this record.
Conclusion
The decision that is read in a report against the physician is which act the fault was written to. The patient's objection petition does not stand in for this reading. The report stands in the file and is not treated as absent. There is no amount in this text. The frame is on the health law page. The contact route is open for the report in hand. The basis is article 282 of the Code of Civil Procedure numbered 6100.