In the case handled by our firm, where the plaintiff sought the removal of an incorrect psychiatric/mental health diagnosis made by a doctor, the court found it unlawful for the same doctor who made the original diagnosis to be part of the review board. Consequently, the court ruled to annul the decision not to remove the diagnosis. The related decision is provided below:
TURKEY
….. ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
PLAINTIFF: …
ATTORNEY: …
DEFENDANT: …. Provincial Governor’s Office
ATTORNEY: …. Yalçın TORUN
SUMMARY OF THE CASE: The plaintiff filed a lawsuit regarding the refusal of a request to remove a “generalized anxiety disorder” diagnosis, which was erroneously given by the Psychiatry Clinic of … City Hospital on 16/12/2022. The plaintiff claimed that the diagnosis was incorrect, and sought the removal of the diagnosis and related medication record. This request was rejected by the Provincial Health Directorate on 16/04/2024, and the plaintiff is seeking the annulment of this decision, arguing that the board reviewing the diagnosis included the same doctor who made the original diagnosis, which made the decision biased and unlawful.
DEFENSE SUMMARY: The defendant argues that the lawsuit was filed after the legal time limit, and if the court determines that the case was not filed within the statutory period, the case should be dismissed. Regarding the merits of the case, the defendant contends that the decision was made in accordance with the law and regulations. In response to the plaintiff’s objection, the evaluation made by the board, which includes the doctor who made the original diagnosis, concluded that the diagnosis was not wrong. Therefore, the defendant claims the dismissal of the case.
DECISION BY THE COURT:
The court has reviewed the case and found the objections to the procedural aspects of the case (i.e., timeliness of the lawsuit) to be unfounded. Therefore, the review of the merits of the case was conducted.
This case concerns a request for the removal of a “generalized anxiety disorder” diagnosis made on 16/12/2022 at … City Hospital’s Psychiatry Clinic. The plaintiff argues that the diagnosis was made in error, and requested that both the diagnosis and the related medication record be removed. The request was rejected by the Provincial Health Directorate on 29/04/2024. This refusal was contested in the present case.
Upon examining the case documents, the court observes that a report was issued by … City Hospital, confirming that the diagnosis of “Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Unspecified” was mistakenly given. The plaintiff filed a request with the Provincial Health Directorate to remove this diagnosis, but the Directorate rejected the request.
The Ministry’s report was based on a review by a health committee, which included the doctor who originally made the diagnosis. However, the court found that the inclusion of the doctor who made the original diagnosis in the evaluation board undermines the objectivity of the decision. According to the applicable methodology for rectifying erroneous health records, the doctor who originally made the diagnosis should not be part of the review board for an impartial assessment.
In this case, the board that made the decision included the doctor who made the original diagnosis and issued a report confirming that the diagnosis was not made in error. The court concluded that this decision was not impartial, as required by law. Therefore, the court annulled the decision of the Provincial Health Directorate.
As a result, the court ruled as follows:
- The decision of the Provincial Health Directorate is annulled.
- The defendant (the Provincial Health Directorate) is ordered to pay the litigation costs to the plaintiff.
- The attorney’s fee is to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant, in accordance with the Attorney’s Minimum Fee Tariff.
- If any advance payments were made, the excess amount should be refunded to the plaintiff after the finalization of the case, unless otherwise requested.
- The defendant is responsible for the litigation costs incurred during the appeal process.
- The parties are notified that the decision can be appealed to the Regional Administrative Court within 30 days.
Attorney Yalçın Torun
© 2025 Torun Law Firm – All Rights Reserved.
This article is protected under the provisions of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (No. 5846). The content, in whole or in part, may not be copied, reproduced, published, or shared on any other website without the prior written permission of the author and Torun Law Firm.
This material may only be shared by licensed attorneys, for professional purposes, without any modifications, and with full attribution to the author and the source.
Any unauthorized use may result in legal and criminal liability.