In short
If the physician does not go to the hearing, the same thing does not always happen in the file. The result is read from the service line and from the warning in the summons. Not going is not a conviction. Absence does not build a judgment of acquittal either. This text does not build a threat of conviction.
Whom the service line was written to
The hearing summons is the summons paper served together with the indictment. If there is no piece of service, the physician is not treated as not having come. A notification made by telephone, fax, or electronic mail does not carry the results of the summons paper. The name, the address, and the date are read on the piece. Service that went to another person's or an institution's address is not treated as made on this physician. The institution's document register, if it is not the physician's own piece of service, is not put in its place. If a second piece went out to the physician, that piece is read separately.
The interval between the service of the summons paper and the hearing day is read from the own lines of the two dates. This text does not write a day into that interval. How fast the prosecution office or the court prepared the hearing is not here either. If the courtroom, the hour, and the court name stand in the summons, those lines are read. If there is no courtroom name, it is left as not being there. Another office's courtroom is not added to this summons. If the summons belongs to after one session, the minutes of the earlier session do not stand in for the service of the new summons. Each session's paper stays in its own place.
Not coming to the hearing before service was made, and not being in the courtroom after service was made, are not the same sentence. The first is not built while there is no piece. The second is read when the piece and the minutes stand side by side. If the minutes say "he did not come", the line that says it is read. If the minutes do not write this word, absence is not drawn from the summons. If there is more than one session, the absence line of each session is separate. Being present at one session does not erase the absence of the later session. Coming at the later session does not take the earlier absence line out of the minutes either.
The warning sentence in the summons
On the summons that goes to a defendant who is not in detention, it is written that if he does not come without an excuse he will be brought by force. If this sentence is on the paper, it is read. The sentence is not a conviction. If the offence requires only a judicial fine or confiscation, or the two together, it is written in the invitation that the hearing will be held even if the defendant does not come. If that sentence is not there, that the hearing will be held in absence is not completed from this text. If the sentence is there, the sentence does not write a year of sentence either. This page does not add a year of sentence. The warning is not the judgment itself.
Whichever result the warning sentence says, that result is read. If there are two different warnings in two files, the two are not joined. Joining would be a guess that stands in for the minutes. If a summons came to the same physician both from the criminal court and from another authority, each summons stays with its own warning sentence. The word of being brought by force in one is not carried onto the paper in the other. A summons relating to a defendant who is in detention and a summons relating to a defendant who is not in detention are not put in the same mould either. Whether the physician is in detention is read from the decision in the file. If there is no decision, detention is not assumed.
If the summons writes the hour of the hearing, the hour is read. If there is no hour, the institution's ordinary session hour is not added to this paper. An hour that is not added does not build a judgment that the physician was late, or left early, either. Being late, or leaving early, is read only if it is written in the minutes. If the minutes do not say "he left during the session", the leaving is not derived from the absence. A leaving that is not derived does not write the summons of the next session either. The next summons is looked for on its own paper.
Absence is not the same in every minutes
As a rule, the hearing is not held about a defendant who is not present. If there is no valid reason for not coming, a decision to bring him by force may be given. If the court reaches the view that a decision other than a conviction, a decision that there is no ground for imposing a sentence, and a security measure is required, it may finish the case in absence even if the questioning was not carried out. This possibility is not a threat that ties not coming to a conviction. It is not a promise of acquittal either. That not coming will give a result for or against is not said in this text. Which sentence operated is read from the hearing minutes.
If the defendant was questioned before, then left the courtroom or did not come to the later session, and the court no longer sees his presence as necessary, the case may be finished in absence. If there is no earlier questioning, this sentence is not treated as applied. Whether the earlier questioning was carried out is looked for in the minutes of the earlier session. If there are no minutes, a questioning is not assumed to exist. If there is no line that writes that he left the courtroom, the leaving is not drawn from the absence. If an interim decision of the court that "his presence is not necessary" does not stand, this decision is not invented.
The minutes write which act was carried out in absence. If they do not write it, the act is not completed from the warning in the summons. If the interim decision and the judgment are not on the same page, the two are read separately. If the page that builds the judgment is not in hand, the absence is not named as a conviction or an acquittal. The adjournment minutes are not the page on which the matter ended. If the adjournment writes a new day, the day that is written is read. If there is no new day, a day is not added from this text. If participation by sound or image is written expressly in the minutes, that line is read. If there is no line, not being in the courtroom is not changed into being present from a distance. If remote participation is written, whether this writing erases the physician's absence line in the courtroom comes out of the minutes' own sentence. If there is no sentence, the two states are not joined.
The defence-counsel line and the excuse paper
Defence counsel being in the courtroom does not mean the physician himself came. The minutes write who was present. Counsel's name is not put in the place of the physician's name. The physician's absence is on a separate line in the minutes. If the counsel line is blank, it is left blank. The blank line is not turned, on this page, into a judgment that the physician stood alone, or was not represented at all. Whether the power of attorney stands in the file is looked at separately. The power of attorney does not stand in for the absence minutes.
Notifying an excuse is not the not-coming itself. The excuse paper is a separate document. This text does not write that petition. With which sentence the excuse will be built, which document will be annexed, and what will be said in the courtroom, are not here. The excuse having been submitted does not treat every session as adjourned of itself. The adjournment appears separately in the minutes. If there is an interim decision that writes that it was refused, that decision is read. If there is no decision, a refusal or an acceptance is not invented. The patient's complaint route is in the article a complaint process against a doctor. That article does not explain the physician's absence minutes.
If the date of the excuse paper and the date of the session are different, the two dates stand separately. The difference is not turned into a number of days on this page. If the paper was submitted after the session, the submission does not mean the session was never held. If it was submitted before the session, the adjournment is not assumed to exist before it appears in the minutes either. The two papers are read side by side. Reading them side by side does not promise the physician a result in favour of not coming. The place that has no promise is the act the minutes wrote.
The criminal session does not close the compensation number
Not going to the criminal session does not make the compensation file fall of itself. The separation of the two files is in the article criminal proceedings and compensation. Against whom the action was directed is in the article against whom it is filed. The frame of a medical practice error is under medical malpractice. These three articles do not put a judgment in the place of the absence minutes. The compensation file's own principal number stands. The minutes of the criminal session do not close that number of themselves. If there is a separate summons relating to the compensation hearing, that summons is read from its own service. The criminal summons is not a copy of the civil summons.
A medical sentence in the minutes is not treated as having changed the epicrisis line. Later correcting a line in the record, or doing away with a document, is not the subject of this article. What is read is the piece of service, the warning sentence, and the absence minutes.
If it is written in the minutes that a witness or the complainant was heard, that line does not close the physician's absence. The name of the person who was heard is not the physician's name. If the physician's name is not among those present, the absence stands. If the name is there, the warning sentence in the summons is not treated as having operated for that session. Whether it operated is read from the interim decision of the minutes. If there is no interim decision, the warning is not announced as applied of itself. This not being announced is not a sentence that advises the physician not to come either.
The office in Çankaya does not choose the authority the file will go to.
Conclusion
Absence does not give rise to the same result in every physician's file. The service line and the warning sentence are read. Not going is not a conviction, and it does not build an acquittal either. The frame is on the health law page. If the summons and the minutes stand, the assessment is made on those two papers through contact. The basis is the provisions on being present at the hearing in the Criminal Procedure Code numbered 5271.