Occupational Disease Compensation Case

What is occupational disease?
Occupational disease is a temporary or permanent illness, physical or mental disability that the insured undergoes for a repeated reason due to the nature of the work that he or she works or due to the conditions of execution of the work (Law No. 5510 Article 14). The Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331 (m.3 / 1-L) defines occupational disease as the disease caused by exposure to occupational risks.

Employees do the same job for a long time, work in the same way, and are affected by the work they do after a certain time due to the manner or nature of the work, and they become ill. The worker who is caught in the occupational disease has the right to demand financial and moral compensation.
Compensation for occupational disease; It is a kind of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages lawsuit filed in order to compensate the insured and the loss of labor due to occupational disease.

Conditions of Occupational Disease
The diseases that occur in connection with the work performed by the insured due to the activities performed daily or due to the nature of the work or the conditions of the work are considered as occupational diseases. Not all illnesses of the insured can be considered as occupational diseases; in order for a disease to be considered as occupational disease and subject to compensation, the following conditions must be met.

1. The Labor Charter: Law no. 5510 shows the worker who is “insured olarak as the person entitled to occupational disease. However, even if the worker is not insured, it is possible to determine both the insurance and the occupational disease by opening a case for the detection of occupational disease if the work and occupational disease are not otherwise detected by the institution.
2. Condition during the execution of the work: Occupational disease (illness, physical or mental disability) should be caused by the work of the worker. There must be a causal link between occupational disease and the work of the worker.

3.Condition Term: Occupational disease should occur during the work process of the worker with a certain continuity. Physical or mental harm to the worker as a result of sudden or accidental events is considered as “work accident.. In this case, compensation lawsuit may be filed due to work accident. Occupational disease is the gradual development of physical and mental harm after a certain period of time.
4. Disease Charter: Occupational disease must be one of the diseases in the Social Insurance Health Transactions Regulation and Regulation. The disease must affect the worker physically or mentally, leading to a disability. The SSI should be identified by a medical report or a court case. The disputes that may arise in terms of whether any disease other than the diseases specified in the regulation are considered as occupational diseases shall be decided by the Social Insurance High Health Board.

What are occupational diseases?
Occupational diseases are classified under the main headings by being classified in Article 5 of the Social Insurance Health Transactions Regulation:
Head malfunctions (head bones, neurology, neurosurgery, psychiatric disorders and diseases)
Eye defects
Ear malfunctions
Face failures
Neck malfunctions
Chest diseases
Shoulder and arm failures
Wrist and hand malfunctions
Hand fingers malfunctions
Spine failures
Abdominal diseases and malfunctions,
Pelvis and lower extremity malfunctions
Endocrine, metabolism, arm
Diseases under each heading are shown in detail in Schedule A annexed to the Regulation.

How are occupational diseases detected?
The rate of power loss of the worker exposed to occupational disease should be determined first. The rate of loss of power in the profession directly affects whether the insured will be tied to the insured by the SSI, and if so, the amount and the amount of compensation to be ruled as a result of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. Therefore, it is important to determine the power loss rate in the profession correctly due to occupational disease.
The employer is obliged to inform the Authority of this accident and occupational disease declaration within three working days from the date on which he / she learns that the worker who is suffering from occupational disease. Upon notification of occupational disease to SSI, SSI inspectors carry out the necessary controls and inspections through investigation (Law No. 5510, Article 14).

According to Article 40 of the Social Insurance Transactions Regulation, it is determined that the insured is subjected to occupational disease due to the work he / she works:
As a result of the examination of the medical institution report and the basis of medical documents issued by the health service providers authorized by SSI, that is, Ministry of Health Occupational Diseases Hospitals or state university hospitals, occupational disease and disability rates (occupational power loss rate) are determined by SSI Health Board.
SSI Health Board may determine occupational disease and disability rate by examining the audit reports and other necessary documents that reveal the working conditions in the workplace and its medical results, if deemed necessary by SSI.

Against the determinations made by the SSI Health Board regarding whether the event is occupational disease and the disability rate can be appealed to the SSI High Health Board in Ankara. As a rule, the decision of the Supreme Health Council is binding on the SSI, but it is not binding for the other concerned in the case of a decision of the Supreme Health Council (objection is possible by filing a lawsuit) should be made through the Forensic Medicine Institution (Y21HD-K.2015 / 15051) ).
If the incident that the worker is exposed to is not considered as occupational disease by SSI, a lawsuit may be filed for the purpose of detecting occupational disease. The labor court is responsible for conducting the case of occupational disease detection. Both the employer and the SSI should be sued together in the case of occupational disease detection.

In Article 4 of Law No. 506, employers are defined as persons employing insured persons, and as a result, the cases concerning the occupational disease include the provision of the determination that the relationship between the insured and the employer is a service relationship, thus accessing the workplace information and documents in this direction, in short, there is a legal obligation for the employer to be a party to the case in terms of the proceedings and the execution of the decision. In this case, it is necessary to decide on the basis of the result of incomplete research, while the non-case employer should be duly directed towards the hostility by participating in the case.

Timeout in the case of occupational disease compensation
The statute of limitations for occupational sickness compensation cases is 10 years (Law no.
The period of statute of limitations for damages begins from the date of the perpetrator and the damage learned. The concept of learning harm in occupational disease compensation case is very important for the beginning of the statute of limitations. Learning the damage is meant; all conditions and conditions (scope, nature, effect, etc.) means that the damage has been learned. Especially in the case of bodily harm, the damage reaches a certain clarity only with the doctor’s report issued as a result of care and treatment. In cases where physical harm develops, the date of “development completion” is taken into consideration as the beginning of the statute of limitations. In the case of occupational diseases where there is no changing and developing situation, the statute of limitations starts on the date of detection of occupational disease.

Employer’s Responsibility for Inevitability
According to Article 21/1 of Law No. 5510, the principle of lık inevitability shall be taken into consideration in determining the employer’s responsibility ”. The inevitable reduction of occupational disease occurs when the employer fulfills all his obligations in accordance with the legislation. In spite of the employer taking all kinds of measures, in case of occupational disease, financial indemnity should be reduced.
In the doctrine, in judicial decisions and laws, bad coincidence, extraordinary state, unexpected situation, inevitability, also known as random event, cannot be prevented legally and technically, it cannot be prevented in other words, even if all the measures stipulated by the legislation are taken.

Elements of inevitability; 1-Event that occurred outside the will, 2-Violation of the code of conduct or contract debt, 3-The existence of a link of relevance, 4-Irrevocable.

In particular, the last one of these elements should be explained a little bit about the inevitability of the event; the inevitability here has nothing to do with the event. The element of irreversibility is entirely related to the norm of conduct and non-compliance with the debt, and is an expression of a violation of a norm of conduct or of a contractual obligation, even if all measures are taken. In other words, although the event cannot be prevented, it is no longer possible to speak of inevitability if a violation of a code of conduct or contractual obligation can be avoided. Scientific and technological developments provide a code of conduct and the opportunity to prevent non-breach of debt despite the inevitable events. For example; In order to prepare the base on which a construction worker will work, when the nail breaks into the eye while nailing the concrete nail to the wall, the breaking of the nail is an unintentional and inevitable event, but it is not an unavoidable event that the broken nail escapes to the worker’s eye. This can be avoided by using glasses during operation. In such a case, then, there is no way to speak of the inevitability of the event. Inevitability is considered an unexpected state.Another name for inevitability is another coincidence. Inevitability refers to events that are predictable but cannot be prevented. Sometimes an accident or occupational disease can occur even if all precautions are taken. In case of inevitability, it is not fair to bear all the damages in the case of inevitable distribution of responsibility in the case of inevitability in the Supreme Court applications as a rule 60% employer, 40% of the responsibility is shared as an accident defect (YHGK-K.2018 / 215).

Scope of the Material and Non-pecuniary Compensation Case of Occupational Disease
Workers caught in occupational disease may file a claim for compensation against the employer in order to cover all kinds of material and moral damages.
Non-pecuniary damage is a type of compensation that the person whose personality values are attacked may request. Personality values constitute the individual’s individual rights and although not defined in the law, according to the decisions of the Supreme Court, any person whose life, health, spirit and body integrity is impaired may seek moral compensation.
The case for pecuniary compensation is brought to cover the loss of power and other damages of the worker in the occupation suffered by the occupational disease. The main elements determining the scope of financial compensation are:
Defect rates of the parties,
Disability rate if there is disability,
Worker’s latest income.

In case of death as a result of occupational disease; persons deprived of the support of the deceased worker may sue for financial compensation. The compensation awarded in the cases of pecuniary damages filed due to death is called as compensation for lack of support. The deceased’s spouse, children, parents or anyone who can prove that the deceased supports him / her may file a claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
Although the deceased does not have any support, first degree relatives who are saddened with death may also sue for non-pecuniary damages. (Art. 56/2 of the Code of Obligations). In case of injury, relatives of the injured have no right to claim financial compensation. However, if the injury has caused severe bodily harm (for example, blindness of an eye, rupture of the leg or arm), relatives of the injured may also claim non-pecuniary damage, especially if the injury has occurred (see Art. 56/2).

Occupational Disease Supreme Court Decisions

What is occupational disease? What are the terms?
In our legislation, the definition of occupational disease is made in the first paragraph of Article 14 of the Social Security and General Health Insurance Law no. According to the related paragraph, occupational disease is a temporary or permanent illness, physical or mental disability that the insured suffers for a repeated reason due to the nature of the work that he or she works or due to the conditions of execution of the work. In addition, occupational disease is defined as the disease resulting from exposure to occupational risks in the first paragraph of the first paragraph of Article 3 titled “Definitions’ of the Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331, which entered into force on 01.01.2013.

It should be noted immediately that, as a social risk, a number of conditions must be found in order to distinguish occupational disease from other diseases and to mention the existence of occupational disease. Indeed, the first condition for qualifying the illness or the state of physical or mental disability as occupational illness is that the person is insured. In addition, illness, physical or mental disability should arise as a result of the work carried out, in other words, there must be an appropriate causal link. It should also occur within a certain period of time. Again, occupational disease should be included in the regulation, should occur within the specified time and should be determined with the health report of the Institution. Finally, the condition that the insured suffers from bodily or mental harm must be fulfilled.

As stated above, the first condition for benefiting from occupational disease insurance is that the person in whom the illness, physical or mental disability occurs, is insured under the Occupational Accident and Occupational Disease Insurance regulated by Law No. 5510.
These persons are insured subject to paragraphs “a” and “b ın of the first paragraph of Article 4 of the Law no. 5510 and paragraphs“ a ”,“ b ”,“ c ”,“ e ”and“ g ve of Article 5 and Annex 5 / These are the insured persons referred to in Article 4 and stated that they will apply for occupational accident and occupational disease insurance.

Another condition to be sought for the existence of occupational disease is the occurrence of the disease or the state of physical or mental disability as a result of the work carried out, in other words, the existence of an appropriate causal link. If it can be said that the worker will not catch the disease if he / she does not work in the job, it should be accepted that there is an appropriate causal link between the occupational disease and the work carried out (M. Çenberci, Commentary on Social Insurance Law, Ankara 1985, p. 125). In other words, according to the contract of service, the employer has an appropriate causal link if he is held due to the employee working in the workplace due to the disease, the nature and nature of the work he sees or the conditions of execution of the work (F. Eren, Obligation of the Employer for Workers’ Accidents and Occupational Diseases in Terms of Law of Obligations and Occupational Diseases, Ankara 1974, p.

Another condition to be sought is the occurrence of occupational disease within a certain period of time. As stated in the definition of occupational disease in Law no. 5510, occupational disease should arise for a repeated reason. Indeed, occupational disease is a health problem that gradually arises as a result of the qualification and execution conditions of the work or the condition of the workplace (C. Tuncay / Ö. Ekmekçi p. 401). In fact, the most important feature that distinguishes occupational disease from occupational accidents is the occurrence of the external cause of occupational accident at one time, while the recurrence of occupational disease is repeated (F. Eren, p. 26). For this reason, occupational disease does not occur suddenly and in a very short period of time like occupational accidents.

Again, some of the conditions to be sought for occupational disease is that the occupational disease takes place in the regulation, occurs within the specified period and is determined with the health report of the Institution.
In the last paragraph of Article 14 of Law No. 5510;
The conditions to be considered as occupational disease, the form and content of the occupational accident and occupational disease declaration, the procedure of giving and other procedures and principles regarding the application of this article shall be regulated in the regulation to be issued by the Authority. The disputes that may arise in terms of whether any disease other than the diseases specified in the regulation are considered as occupational diseases shall be decided by the Social Insurance High Health Board. regulation.

The regulation mentioned in the Law is the Regulation on the Determination of the Loss Rate of Work Power and Gain in Work Profession. A list of occupational diseases is included in the annex of the relevant Regulation and a disease must be included in this list for its acceptance as an occupational disease. In cases that are not included in the list but are considered to be occupational diseases, the resulting dispute will be resolved by the decision of the High Health Council.

Moreover, it is not enough for the disease to be accepted as a occupational disease, it is not enough to be included in the list, but it should also occur after a certain time has passed since the worker started working in the disease causing work. For example, according to the first paragraph of Article 20 of the Regulation on Determination of Losses of Labor Force and Profession Gain, Pneumoconiosis must be worked for at least three years in underground or above-ground workplaces in order to be considered as occupational disease. (C. Tuncay / Ö. Ekmekçi p. 401).

On the other hand, as stated in Article 14 of Law No. 5510 and Article 36/1 of the Social Insurance Transactions Regulation, it is necessary to determine with the health report of the Institution that the insured is subjected to occupational disease.
In Article 14 of the Law; Un that the insured is afflicted with occupational disease due to the work he / she works for;
a) Examination of the medical board report and medical documents based on the duly issued by the health service providers authorized by the Authority,
b) When it is deemed necessary by the Authority, inspection reports and other necessary documents that reveal the working conditions in the workplace and related medical results shall be examined and the result shall be determined by the Board of Health of the Authority.
thus, the determination of the Board of Health was sought in the acceptance of the occupational disease.

Finally, another condition required for qualification of illness or physical or mental disability as occupational disease is that the insured suffers physical or mental harm. It is not sufficient for the insured to encounter occupational disease due to repeated or due to the nature of the work that he or she works or as a result of the execution of the work. At the same time temporary or permanent illness, physical or mental disability should occur.

In the present case, the defendant of the insured M…. Brisa Bridgestone Sabancı Lastik San. ve Tic. As a result of the work carried out while working as a tire manufacturing operator, he was disturbed by his constant use of his hand and applied to the workplace doctor on 02.04.2008, the insured was diagnosed with right letheral epicondylitis, and then diagnosed with left cubital tunnel syndrome. On 14.04.2009, he was operated on with the diagnosis of right lateral epicondylitis, treated on various dates due to his illness, and lastly 13.11.2009 report from İstanbul Occupational Diseases Hospital, diagnosed with bilateral lateral epondilitis, cubital tunnel syndrome, 20.08.2010 It is understood in the decision of Social Health Supreme Board of Health dated that M… ş’s disease is on the list of occupational diseases with E-6 code and that the current disease is occupational.

When the concrete event is evaluated in the light of the information given on the definition and conditions of the occupational disease, the insured M… ‘s use of his hand while carrying out his profession, due to the nature of the work carried out due to the nature of the disease occurred, if the insured, the defendant employer would not emerge as the disease would not work as a tire manufacturing operator. it is clear that there is an appropriate causal link between workplace conditions and the resulting disease. In this case, it is necessary to accept that M hast hast s disease is an occupational disease since all the conditions for the existence of occupational disease have been fulfilled in terms of the insured (General Court of Appeals – Decision: 2018/1185)

Obligation to file a case for the detection of occupational disease
The work to be done, the profession is reported to the Social Security Institution, the investigation was made, but the investigation report has not been reached a positive negative result is taken into account, the plaintiff’s claimants of the plaintiff to be recognized as a professional disease of the lung cancer disease in the application of the disease to be accepted by the Authority. Since it will affect the Social Security Institution and the right field, it is given priority to open a case for the determination of occupational disease against the employer; if it is accepted that the disease is an occupational disease, the plaintiff is required to finalize the report on the determination of the rate of permanent incapacity caused by the occupational disease after obtaining all the medical documents related to the disease; receiving a report from the SSI Higher Health Council and the 3rd Specialization Board of Forensic Medicine, respectively; if there is a conflict between the existing reports; This is the resolution of the contradiction between the reports by obtaining a report from the General Assembly of Forensic Medicine and making a decision according to the result. The decision of the court in writing and incomplete examination and research without taking these material and legal facts into consideration requires violations as it is against the procedure and the law (Decision of the Supreme Court 21. Law Chamber – Decision: 2015/17475).

In the cases of compensation of damages not compensated by the Social Security Institution (compensation cases), it is a settled and established opinion of the Court of Cassation that the advance capital value of the income attached to the insured by the Institution should be deducted from the compensation in order to prevent unjust enrichment and reimbursement. On the other hand, the rate of loss of power in the occupation must be determined precisely without any doubt and hesitation, as it directly affects the amount of income to be attached to the insured and the amount of compensation to be awarded. In Article 14 of the Law No. 5510, in respect of the insured persons covered by paragraph a) of article 4, paragraph 1 of article 4 and article 5, the occupational disease is learned by the employer who is informed of this situation by the employer, or within three working days starting from the day when this situation is learned. and that the necessary investigations on notifications related to occupational diseases can be made by the officers authorized by the inspection and control of the Institution or through the Ministry Labor Inspectors, the form and content of the occupational accident and occupational disease declaration and other procedures and principles regarding the application of this article shall be regulated in the regulation to be issued by the Authority. It was reported that the Social Security Supreme Board of Health will decide the disagreement about whether or not occupational disease is counted.On the other hand, Article 18 of Law No. 5510 provides that the insured who is incapacitated due to occupational illness shall be given temporary incapacity allowance for each day provided that the rest report is obtained from physicians and health boards authorized by the Authority. It has been reported that the insured who has been determined to have at least a 10% decrease in the earning capacity in the profession by the Authority Health Boards, will be given permanent disability allowance. In the present case, it is understood that the disease, which is understood to have been caught due to the discomfort of the plaintiff in his left ear, is not classified as occupational disease according to the expert report submitted to the Occupational Diseases Hospital and the file.In order to provide income to the insured by the institution, first of all, it is a preliminary problem to determine whether the damaging event is an occupational disease or not. The dispute concerning the detection of occupational disease is directly related to the rights of the Social Security Institution and the institution is not a party in the compensation case. Work to do; to notify the plaintiff about the occupational disease to the Social Security Institution, since it will affect the Social Security Institution and the right field in case the event is not accepted as a professional disease by the Authority, to give priority to the ‘determination of the occupational disease’ case against the employer and to make the determination case pending for this case. If it is accepted by the Agency that the occupational disease is applied to the plaintiff by applying to the Authority to determine the rate of continuous incapacity to work increasingly from the occupational disease insurance branch to give priority to the incapacity of permanent incapacity and makes a decision according to the outcome (Supreme Court 21. Law Department – Decision: 2015/120) .

Timeout and interest in compensation for occupational disease
It is understood from the information and documents in the file that the plaintiff has been permanently incapacitated due to occupational disease on 03.07.2000 due to occupational disease and income from 21.10.2002 approval date starting from 04.08.2000 has been attached. It is clear that there is no changing and developing situation in terms of occupational disease which is the basis of continuous incapacity for the plaintiff and that the time-out in occupational diseases will start from the date of detection of occupational disease. Accordingly, considering the date of detection of occupational disease, it is clear that the 10-year period foreseen by the law has passed on 14.11.2015 additional case date. In this case, the statute of limitation put forward by the defendant within the time limit should be accepted and the decision to reject the claim for additional compensation, while it was wrong to decide to accept the request for compensation in the form that includes the additional claim.With regard to the rate of permanent incapacity due to occupational disease detected in 2000, in 2014…. It is clear that the assessment made by the applicant will not give the claimant a right to determine the beginning of the time-out. The plaintiff has been explicitly requested to carry out legal interest from the date of determination of the disability for the compensation incurred in the original and merged cases. On the other hand, in cases filed due to inability to work as a result of occupational disease, it is one of the settled practices of our department and increasingly the Supreme Court that the interest should be carried out from the date of detection of occupational disease where the loss occurs, and that the recognition of the occupational disease should be accepted in default with respect to the harm.In this case, according to the nature of the case, it is necessary to decide the interest as of 03.07.2000, when the occupational disease is detected, esi The decision of interest as of the date of the report is contrary to the procedure and the law and causes the disruption. Regarding these material and legal facts by the Court, and in particular by making a mistake on the date of detection of the occupational disease, the establishment of a written verdict is a violation of the procedure and the law (Reason of Supreme Court 21. Law – Decision: 2016/3194).

Research in the Detection of Occupational Disease
Plaintiff Institution, which entered into a continuous incapacity of 10.3% as a result of occupational disease (Occupational Bronchial Asthma) allegedly caught while doing carpentry and combing yarn in the carpentry shop between 1980 – 1986 and in the weaving factory of the defendant company between 1989 – 2003 The insured worker requested the defendant employer to decide on the recourse of the defendant employer in accordance with Article 26 of the Law no. It was decided by the Court to reject the case on the grounds that ill no causal link could be established that the plaintiff was caught because of the work of the defendant in the workplace and that the employer had no flaws….

Pursuant to both Article 18 of Law No. 506 and Article 14 of Law No. 5510; In order to ensure that employers are held responsible for occupational disease, it is determined that the insured is engaged in occupational disease while working in the service of these employers and that the loss of power gained in the occupation is caused by this disease; ) a longer time has not passed. However, in cases where occupational disease is confirmed by clinical and laboratory findings and the factor causing occupational disease is evidenced by workplace examination, the disease in question, even if the period of obligation is exceeded. Occupational disease can be considered with the approval of the Social Insurance Supreme Board of Health. What is important here is not the date of the report that determines the disease, but the date of occurrence according to medical data.

In the concrete case subject to the case, the working conditions in the workplace, the period of obligation foreseen for the occupational disease and the procedures of the Institution carried out in relation to it have not been investigated. The expertise of the civil and mechanical engineer experts who prepare the defect report based on the provision of the court in the occupational disease occurring in the insured cannot be mentioned. For this reason, information and documents regarding the procedures carried out by the respondent Institution should be brought in terms of the period of obligation and the term of obligation prescribed for the illness and the decision and approval of the Social Insurance High Health Board and the graphics drawn up with documents regarding the periodical examinations of the insured, if necessary. working conditions in the workplace should be determined by the discovery of the insured, the characteristics of the work done by the insured, the factors leading to the occupational disease caught and accordingly the occupational disease and the workplace of the respondent company in terms of the formation and progress of the disease in terms of the causal relationship of the employer in case of determination of the causal relationship margin of defect, among them, including the expert doctor expert in the occupational disease, the expert le should be determined. The fact that a written verdict has been established as a result of incomplete examination and research without considering the material and legal facts disclosed by the court is contrary to the procedure and the law (10th Chamber of Court of Cassation – Decision: 2011/2781).

Occupational Disease Compensation After Opening The Case Of Death And Compensation Of Relatives’ Prompt
The case concerned the claim of the insured who died as a result of occupational disease to compensate for the moral damages of the right holders. Court; the court rejected the claim on the grounds that the plaintiffs requested financial compensation due to the occupational disease where the muris of the plaintiffs were caught, that they did not have a claim for non-pecuniary compensation, and that the plaintiffs could not claim any moral compensation due to the occupational illness where the deceased was apprehended.

Pursuant to both Article 18 of Law No. 506 and Article 14 of Law No. 5510; In order to ensure that employers are held responsible for occupational disease, it is determined that the insured is engaged in occupational disease while working in the service of these employers and that the loss of power gained in the occupation is caused by this disease; ) a longer time has not passed. However, in cases where occupational disease is confirmed by clinical and laboratory findings and the factor causing occupational disease is evidenced by workplace examination, the disease in question, even if the period of obligation is exceeded. Occupational disease can be considered with the approval of the Social Insurance Supreme Board of Health. What is important here is not the date of the report that determines the disease, but the date of occurrence according to medical data.

In the concrete case subject to the case, the working conditions in the workplace, the period of obligation foreseen for the occupational disease and the procedures of the Institution carried out in relation to it have not been investigated. The expertise of the civil and mechanical engineer experts who prepare the defect report based on the provision of the court in the occupational disease occurring in the insured cannot be mentioned. For this reason, information and documents regarding the procedures carried out by the respondent Institution should be brought in terms of the period of obligation and the term of obligation prescribed for the illness and the decision and approval of the Social Insurance High Health Board and the graphics drawn up with documents regarding the periodical examinations of the insured, if necessary. working conditions in the workplace should be determined by the discovery of the insured, the characteristics of the work done by the insured, the factors leading to the occupational disease caught and accordingly the occupational disease and the workplace of the respondent company in terms of the formation and progress of the disease in terms of the causal relationship of the employer in case of determination of the causal relationship margin of defect, among them, including the expert doctor expert in the occupational disease, the expert le should be determined. The fact that a written verdict has been established as a result of incomplete examination and research without considering the material and legal facts disclosed by the court is contrary to the procedure and the law (10th Chamber of Court of Cassation – Decision: 2011/2781).

Occupational Disease Compensation After Opening The Case Of Death And Compensation Of Relatives’ Prompt
The case concerned the claim of the insured who died as a result of occupational disease to compensate for the moral damages of the right holders. Court; the court rejected the claim on the grounds that the plaintiffs requested financial compensation due to the occupational disease where the muris of the plaintiffs were caught, that they did not have a claim for non-pecuniary compensation, and that the plaintiffs could not claim any moral compensation due to the occupational illness where the deceased was apprehended.

Records and documents in the file; that the plaintiffs’ muris worked in the molding department at the defendant’s workplace between 29.3.1983 – 13.9.2005, where they obtained casting molds by pouring the sand into special wooden molds, that the plaintiff was caught with occupational disease, and therefore that the labor force was lost. Lütfi Kırdar Kartal Training and Research Hospital, which is fixed by the reports, Istanbul Occupational Diseases Hospital dated 22.5.2007. In the report of the labor inspector dated 30.7.2003, it was stated that ölüm the death of the insured was one of the pneumonchoniosis occupational diseases and complications;; It is understood that 90% of the respondent employer is defective in the occurrence of occupational disease in the workplace, 10% is inevitability, SSI connects the income to the insured due to disability, then filed a lawsuit against the defective employer who claimed that the defective claim the collection with interest, Kartal 1. Labor Court 2004/316 E. file of the expert panel in the case of the occupational disease in the formation of the plaintiff 90% defect, 10% inevitability is found in the event, this expert report based on the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals 10 ilam was confirmed.

The dispute is gathered as to whether the heirs may claim non-pecuniary damages because the muris did not make any claim for non-pecuniary damages.
The legal basis for non-pecuniary damage in the event of death is B.K. Article 47. According to this, “The judge may decide to give a damages to the deceased’s family in the name of non-pecuniary damages in case of death or to the person who deducts the bodily damage by taking special cases into consideration. Için Non-pecuniary damage appears to be the discomfort, pain and pain (anguish) that result from the loss of values ​​other than assets, that is, the values ​​of the person’s existence. Non-pecuniary damage consists of the assessment of the grievance and pain caused by the damage to the values ​​of the person’s assets. In the event of death, there are those who will suffer very seriously. Those who will seek moral compensation are those who are extremely saddened and grieved by death. Those who will truly suffer from death are relatives of the dead.

The sufferings of the deceased, Nazmiye’s wife, the plaintiff’s father, the father of the other plaintiffs, working in the defendant’s workplace for 22 years and 6 months, caught in the occupational disease, died at the age of 46 due to occupational disease, the employer was defective, while the plaintiffs demanded moral compensation, as well as the cause of the death of muris due to occupational disease. It is evident that the plaintiffs suffered and suffered due to the death of their muris, accordingly that there were non-pecuniary damages, and that the case for non-pecuniary damages was therefore justified (Decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals 21st Chamber – 2012/8520).

Linking Death Income Due to Occupational Disease
In the present case, it is clear from the information and documents in the file and in particular from the Social Security Institution’s reply dated 06.06.2014 that the death event is due to the death of the plaintiff muris, but that the death event is not related to the occupational illness.

The work to be done as a result of occupational disease to the claimant’s death is the result of betting income to apply to the Social Security Institution for binding, the death by the Authority as a result of the occupational disease is not accepted as a result of the rejection of the request for death and death income will affect the social security authority and the right to death disease and the death of occupational disease as a result of death due to the determination of the right to bring the case to give priority to the case, the determination of this case by making a pending problem consists of making a decision according to the result.

The fact that the court decided that the death of the plaintiff muris without considering the material and legal phenomena and the determination of the material and non-pecuniary damages as a result of incomplete examination and research before the determination of the death caused by the occupational disease is a procedural and unlawful reason (2015/8188)