EVALUATION OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS FOLLOWING RHINOPLASTY IN THE CONTEXT OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
1Pamukkale Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Adli Tıp Anabilim Dalı, Denizli, Türkiye2Pamukkale Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Kulak Burun Boğaz Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı, Denizli, Türkiye
3Pamukkale Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Plastik ve Rekonstrüktif Cerrahi Anabilim Dalı, Denizli, Türkiye Introduction: Rhinoplasty is one of the aesthetic facial surgeries that have recently increased in popularity. The objective of this study is to examine the criteria and methods of legal evaluation of disputes arising after rhinoplasty surgery in the context of supreme judicial court decisions. Additionally, it seeks to elucidate the legal responsibilities of physicians performing rhinoplasty surgery and the approaches of physicians appointed as experts in such cases.
Methods and materials: The keywords were searched from the address "https://legalbank.net/arama/mahkeme-kararlari". Court decisions on medical malpractice claims encountered after rhinoplasty surgery and the reasons for reversal and approval of the higher courts were evaluated.
Results: A total of 30 decisions meeting the search criteria were identified. It was determined that 96.7% of the surgeries included aesthetic purposes and were evaluated by the Court of Cassation within the scope of the work contract, and the Court of Cassation overturned 86.6% of the decisions. The most common reason for reversal was the inadequacies in the expert reports.
Discussion and conclusion: While rhinoplasty surgery performed for functional purposes is within the scope of "contract of agency", interventions with aesthetic purposes are evaluated by the Court of Cassation within the scope of "contract of work". Physicians who will perform aesthetic interventions should perform their professions by knowing the legal equivalent of aesthetic applications, and in terms of expertise; aesthetic applications should be evaluated by keeping in mind that aesthetic applications are evaluated within the scope of the contract of work before the Court of Cassation.
Keywords : Rhinoplasty, malpractice, contract of work