21st Law Office
Case Number: 2018/920
Decision Number: 2019/886
“Text of Justice”
COURT: Labor Court
IN THE NAME OF THE TURKISH NATION
The plaintiff has claimed material and moral damages resulting from disability caused by a work accident. As stated in its decision, the court rejected the claim and overturned the decision. An appeal was filed by the plaintiff’s attorney, it was determined that the appeal was filed within the time limit, the documents in the file were examined, the necessity of the case was taken into consideration, and the following decision was rendered.
DECISION
In light of the documents in the file, the evidence gathered, the compelling reasons on which the judgment is based, and the scope and reasons for the appeal, the plaintiff’s other appeals outside the scope of this paragraph have been rejected. It is understood from the scope of the file that the plaintiff has a permanent disability of 0% as a result of the work accident, that the plaintiff insured is 20% at fault, and that the defendant employer is 80% at fault. The court has decided to reject the plaintiff’s claim for material and moral damages because he is not disabled.
1-
Compensation claims arising from work accidents relate to claims for compensation for damages not covered by the Social Security Institution.
As understood from the scope of the file, the court reached this conclusion by disregarding the loss of wages incurred during the period when the plaintiff was unable to work due to the work accident in question.
Pursuant to Article 18 of Law No. 5510, the Institution pays temporary disability benefits to insured persons who are temporarily unable to work due to a work accident or occupational disease. These benefits are paid from the start of treatment in cases of work accidents and occupational diseases for as long as the person is unable to work (as reported). The material damage resulting from a work accident includes the income lost by the insured person during the period of temporary incapacity. It is clear that an insured person who is unable to work during the notification period will suffer a loss equal to the wages lost during this period, and this loss should be considered as material damage.
The financial loss of the insured person during the period when their treatment continues and they are unable to work due to the harmful event should be calculated based on the assumption that they suffered a 100% loss of working capacity during this period. If the Social Security Institution (SGK) is required to pay the insured person a temporary disability benefit and the material damage has been determined by an expert, the result obtained by deducting the recoverable portion of this benefit from the calculated material damage will reveal the victim’s uncompensated loss during the rest period, also known as the temporary disability period.
Therefore,
the Court decided to reject the claim for material damages with written justification, without calculating the wages lost by the plaintiff (as reported) during the rest period, given that the permanent disability rate was “0%.” The task at hand is to assess that the plaintiff was 100% incapacitated during the sick leave period, to calculate the material damage in line with the expert’s acceptance of a loss equal to the wages lost due to inability to work during this period, and to evaluate all evidence together and decide accordingly.
2-
On the other hand, as stated in both Article 47 of the repealed Civil Code and Article 56 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 6098, if a person’s physical integrity is harmed, the judge is obliged to pay an appropriate amount of money as moral damages, taking into account the characteristics of the case.
The judge must determine that the amount of money to be awarded to the injured person as moral damages is fair, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case. This money has a unique quality, similar to compensation, which will ensure the moral peace of the injured person. It is not punitive in nature and does not aim to compensate for damages related to property law. Therefore, the limit of this compensation should be determined according to its purpose. The amount to be paid should be as much as necessary to provide the desired satisfaction in the current situation. The reasoning of the Supreme Court Decision Consolidation Decision dated 26.06.1966 and numbered 7/7 also clearly states the special circumstances and conditions that will affect the amount of moral compensation to be determined.
As these may vary from case to case,
the judge should exercise his discretion in this matter and provide effective reasons based on objective criteria in the decision. When exercising this discretion, the judge must consider the economic conditions of the country, the social and economic conditions of the parties, the purchasing power of money, the degree of fault of the parties, the seriousness of the incident, the plaintiff’s permanent disability rate, the age of the worker, the date of the incident, and the amount of compensation to be awarded, which should be both deterrent and provide moral satisfaction.
It is undeniable that the compensation must be sufficient to cause a sense of pain. In light of these explanations, in the specific case, considering that the plaintiff, who is permanently disabled at a rate of 0%, will experience sorrow and pain even if he is not permanently unable to work, the violation of his mental integrity and nervous breakdown, taking into account the treatment period, falls within the scope of the concept of physical harm, and appropriate moral compensation must be awarded. When a decision must be made, it is not correct for the court to reject the claim for moral damages. The court’s written decision, which does not take these material and legal facts into account, is contrary to procedure and law and is grounds for annulment. Therefore, the plaintiff’s objections on these grounds should be accepted, and the decision should be overturned.