Orthopedic & Traumatology Malpractice in Türkiye: Wrong Surgery, Wrong-Side Operations, Missed Diagnosis, and Permanent Disability Claims
Why orthopedic malpractice cases are uniquely high-stakes
Orthopedic and traumatology interventions often decide a patient’s long-term mobility, independence, and earning capacity. A single error—operating on the wrong side, missing a fracture on initial imaging, failing to recognize compartment syndrome, placing an implant incorrectly, or delaying urgent surgery—can transform a treatable injury into a permanent disability.
In legal terms, orthopedic malpractice matters are rarely “small disputes.” They typically involve:
- Complex causation (Did the error cause the disability, or was it an unavoidable medical outcome?)
- High-value damages (loss of earning capacity, lifelong care, revision surgeries, prosthetics, chronic pain, disfigurement)
- Evidence pressure (imaging, operative notes, anesthesia records, consent forms, nursing charts, ICU logs, device stickers/implant labels)
- Strong reliance on expert evaluation (orthopedics, radiology, neurology, vascular surgery, infectious diseases, forensic medicine)
This article explains, in practical and legally grounded terms, when orthopedic complications may amount to malpractice in Turkey—and what an injured patient should do early to protect their claim.
What “malpractice” means in orthopedic practice (and what it does not mean)
Not every poor outcome is malpractice. Orthopedics includes unavoidable risks: infection, thrombosis, nonunion, nerve irritation, implant loosening, stiffness, chronic pain, or the need for revision surgery—sometimes even with appropriate treatment.
A malpractice claim becomes realistic when the harm is linked to deviation from accepted medical standards, such as:
- Wrong patient / wrong procedure / wrong side
- Failure to diagnose or delayed diagnosis (fractures, tendon ruptures, spinal emergencies)
- Surgical planning errors (wrong implant size/type, wrong level, wrong alignment)
- Technical errors (malpositioned screws, iatrogenic nerve/vascular injury without appropriate precautions)
- Inadequate post-op monitoring (missed infection signs, missed compartment syndrome, delayed re-intervention)
- Incomplete or misleading documentation, missing imaging, altered records, or “copy-paste” notes inconsistent with the clinical course
In Turkish civil liability terms, claims are commonly framed through tort liability (faultful and unlawful act causing damage) and/or contractual liability depending on the treatment setting. The general tort principle—fault + unlawfulness + damage + causation—appears explicitly in the Turkish Code of Obligations.
“Wrong-side” and “wrong-site” surgery: the archetypal preventable error
Wrong-site surgery (including wrong side, wrong level, or wrong procedure) is often described internationally as a “never event”—because modern systems are designed to prevent it through standardized steps:
- Confirm identity
- Confirm procedure
- Confirm the surgical site and mark it
- Confirm consent
- Perform a “time-out” before incision with the whole team
These core safety steps are embodied in the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist, which explicitly requires confirmation of identity/site/procedure/consent and asks whether the site is marked.
In malpractice litigation, wrong-side surgery is legally powerful because:
- Standard of care is clear (site marking and team verification are basic precautions).
- Causation is usually straightforward (the harm is directly tied to the wrong intervention).
- Documentation becomes decisive (pre-op forms, marking notes, “time-out” records, operative report, nursing checklist).
- Institutional responsibility often follows (system failure, inadequate protocols, supervision gaps).
If a patient underwent a wrong-side or wrong-site orthopedic procedure, early legal action should focus on securing records immediately and preventing “record drift” (later additions that conveniently fill gaps). Time matters.
Missed diagnosis in orthopedics: where malpractice claims commonly start
Many orthopedic malpractice cases do not begin in the operating room. They begin in the emergency department, outpatient clinic, or radiology pathway—where the first chance to detect a dangerous condition was missed.
Common missed/late diagnosis scenarios include:
1) Missed fractures and dislocations
- Hairline fractures not seen or not properly followed up
- Joint dislocations reduced without adequate imaging/aftercare
- “Normal X-ray” with persistent pain and swelling—no MRI/CT ordered despite red flags
- Elderly hip fracture cases mismanaged as “bruise” or “strain,” leading to displacement and complications
2) Missed compartment syndrome (a time-critical emergency)
This is one of the most litigated orthopedic emergencies worldwide. When warning signs (pain out of proportion, tense swelling, paresthesia, increasing analgesic need) are not acted on, the result can be muscle necrosis, nerve damage, chronic deformity, or amputation.
3) Missed spinal emergencies (cauda equina / cord compression)
Delayed recognition of neurological red flags (saddle anesthesia, bladder dysfunction, progressive weakness) can cause permanent deficits.
4) Missed vascular injury after trauma
A “warm foot” does not always rule out evolving vascular compromise. Failure to check pulses, Doppler/angiography when needed, or delayed consultation can be catastrophic.
In court practice, the central question becomes: Was the clinician’s diagnostic pathway reasonable given the patient’s symptoms, exam findings, and available resources? If not, the missed diagnosis can anchor liability—even if the eventual surgery was performed correctly.
Surgical technique errors and implant-related disputes
Orthopedic surgery involves hardware, alignment, biomechanics, and long-term functional outcomes. Claims frequently arise after:
- Malpositioned screws/plates (penetrating joint, damaging neurovascular structures)
- Wrong implant size/type, or implant selection inconsistent with anatomy/bone quality
- Poor alignment in knee arthroplasty causing instability and early failure
- Failure to manage infection risk properly (especially in prosthetic joints)
- Inadequate fixation leading to nonunion or malunion
- “Revision surgery” required early due to preventable technical issues
Orthopedic literature in Turkey includes compilations discussing how appellate review often scrutinizes expert reports, causation analysis, and the adequacy of medical evaluation in arthroplasty disputes.
The practical takeaway: the quality of the medical expert evaluation can decide the case. A good malpractice file is not built on emotion—it is built on anatomy, timelines, imaging, operative choices, and measurable functional loss.
Informed consent: the silent deal-breaker in many malpractice files
Even when a procedure is clinically justified, the legal problem can be the lack of adequate informed consent.
Turkey’s Patient Rights Regulation emphasizes that the patient must be informed and that medical intervention generally requires the patient’s consent (except in limited urgent/legal exceptions).
In orthopedic cases, consent disputes frequently involve:
- Consent signed minutes before surgery with no real explanation
- Forms that list generic risks but not patient-specific risks (e.g., obesity, diabetes, anticoagulation)
- No discussion of non-surgical alternatives, rehabilitation expectations, or likelihood of revision
- Consent missing for additional procedures performed intraoperatively
- Confusion over laterality (right/left) or level (spine surgery)
Legally, a weak consent process can strengthen a claim in two ways:
- It suggests a broader deficiency in professional diligence and patient autonomy protections.
- It can create liability even where technical negligence is hard to prove (depending on the facts and medical necessity).
Who is liable: surgeon, hospital, or the public administration?
Orthopedic malpractice cases are not only about the physician. Liability may extend to:
- Private hospitals / clinics (institutional liability, staffing, protocols, infection control, record integrity)
- Device and implant pathways (traceability, labeling, procurement integrity)
- Public hospitals (administrative liability regime)
Public hospitals: special route and strict time rules
Claims arising from treatment in public institutions typically require careful analysis under administrative liability rules, including pre-application requirements and short filing timelines in practice. A frequently cited framework is that a claimant must apply to the administration within specific periods (e.g., within one year of learning and within a long-stop period) and then file within the litigation timeframe after a response or implied rejection.
Because these time rules are unforgiving, “waiting to see if it gets better” can destroy an otherwise strong claim. Early legal triage is crucial.
Mandatory mediation: when it may apply in private-treatment disputes
In Turkey, certain civil disputes require mediation as a precondition to filing suit. Consumer-law based claims may trigger this requirement in appropriate settings, and legislation contains a “dava şartı” (cause of action requirement) mechanism in relevant consumer disputes.
There is also official guidance and discussion around dispute resolution pathways and the mediation framework in health-related contexts.
Because the correct route depends on the hospital type, contract structure, and claim framing, malpractice litigation strategy should start with a jurisdiction and procedure audit before drafting the first petition.
Limitation periods: why orthopedic claims are often lost on timing, not merit
Orthopedic injuries evolve over time. Patients often spend months in rehabilitation, then face revision surgery, then try to return to work—only later realizing the disability is permanent. This delay is understandable medically, but dangerous legally.
Under the Turkish Code of Obligations, tort-based compensation claims are subject to a two-year period from learning of the damage and the liable person, and a ten-year long-stop from the act, with special interaction if the act is criminal and a longer criminal limitation applies.
Separately, the Code also contains the general ten-year limitation for claims where no specific rule provides otherwise.
Which limitation applies to your case depends on how the relationship is legally characterized (contract/tort), the treatment setting, and whether the case has an administrative route. This is why experienced malpractice handling starts with deadlines—before any “storytelling” begins.
Building a strong orthopedic malpractice case: what evidence matters most
If you suspect malpractice, the goal is to secure a clean, chronological evidentiary record.
A) Core medical record package
- Admission notes, triage forms, consultation notes
- All imaging (X-ray/CT/MRI) as DICOM files, not only printed reports
- Radiology reports + timestamps
- Operative report, anesthesia form, nursing intra-op checklist (“time-out” records)
- Implant labels, barcodes, device stickers (traceability)
- Post-op follow-up notes, physiotherapy records
- Infection markers, cultures, antibiotic protocols
B) Functional loss evidence (disability valuation)
- Disability/impairment reports
- Work history, income records, occupational demands
- Rehabilitation timelines and documented limitations
- Need for assistive devices, caregiver assistance, home adaptation
C) Causation map (the “timeline spine” of the case)
A persuasive malpractice file is a timeline that answers four questions:
- What should have happened medically?
- What actually happened?
- When did the deviation occur?
- How did that deviation produce the harm?
Orthopedic claims succeed when they look like engineering, not drama.
Damages in orthopedic malpractice: what can be claimed?
Depending on the facts, orthopedic malpractice damages can include:
- Treatment costs, medication, rehabilitation, assistive devices
- Revision surgeries and future medical costs
- Loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity
- Caregiver expenses (temporary or lifelong)
- Pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life (non-pecuniary damages)
- Disfigurement and psychological harm (where supported)
- In fatal outcomes, dependency and support losses for relatives
Every category must be connected to evidence: invoices, expert projections, disability assessments, employment records, and medical necessity reports.
Red flags that justify immediate legal review
Seek legal review quickly if any of the following occurred:
- Surgery performed on the wrong side / wrong level / wrong procedure
- A “normal” diagnosis despite persistent and worsening symptoms
- Serious delay in diagnosing fracture, compartment syndrome, infection, or neurological deficit
- Sudden loss of function after surgery (foot drop, paralysis, severe vascular compromise)
- Missing imaging files, missing operative notes, contradictory chart entries
- Pressure to sign consent without explanation
- “Come back later” approach despite urgent red-flag symptoms
These cases can still be won later—but the earlier evidence is secured, the stronger the outcome.
Frequently asked questions
Is a complication automatically malpractice?
No. The key is whether the complication was unavoidable despite appropriate care, or whether it was made likely or worsened by a preventable deviation.
Can I sue the doctor personally?
Sometimes—depending on whether the treatment is private or public and how liability is structured. Public hospital cases often require specific administrative procedures and strict timing.
What if the hospital refuses to give me records?
Record-access issues should be handled carefully and quickly through the appropriate legal mechanisms. In practice, a structured legal request paired with preservation strategy often prevents later disputes about “missing” evidence.
Do I need a medical expert report?
In almost all orthopedic malpractice disputes, yes. The case usually turns on expert evaluation of diagnosis, surgical indication, technique, aftercare, and causation.
Legal disclaimer: This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Each malpractice claim depends on its specific medical facts, treatment setting, and procedural deadlines.
Yanıt yok