13 of the Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law No. 5510 on occupational accidents. In its article it is defined as follows:
Work accident;
a) At the time when the insured person is at work,
b) If the insured works independently on his own behalf and on his own account due to the work being carried out by the employer, due to the work he is carrying out,
c) Due to the fact that the insured employee, depending on the employer, is sent to another place other than the place of work as an employee, in the times that have passed without doing his main job,
d) (Amended: 17/4/2008-5754/8 art.) At the times allotted to the nursing woman insured under subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 4 of this Law to give milk to her child in accordance with the labor legislation,
e) During the arrival and departure of the insured to the place of work with a vehicle provided by the employer,
it is an event that occurred and immediately or later physically or mentally apologized to the insured person.”
In order for an incident to be classified as an occupational accident in terms of the application of the Social Insurance Law, five elements must occur.
The accident victim must be insured,
Accident of the insured person in terms of place and time, (in places considered to be a place of work or a place of work)
If the insured works independently on his own behalf and on his own account due to the work being carried out by the employer, he will be in an accident due to the work he is carrying out,
Immediate or subsequent bodily (physical or mental) disability of the casualty,
The causality of the accident is the presence of a link.
The following are examples of work accidents kararlarinc which is adopted in the Supreme Court; the insured person while I was at work, bodily injury as a result of a fall while running in the yard or in the cafeteria or rest in a place of injury as a result of a fight, or be shot with a gun by any person in the workplace “suicide” or a workplace located within the boundaries of the pool are considered as cases of death due to drowning accidents in places like work.
The death of an insured employee from a heart attack during his work while working at work should be considered an occupational accident, since it carries the elements listed under the Social Security and General Health Insurance Law No. 5510.
The Supreme Court’s Decision on the issue is as follows;
C. General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Law 2004/21-529 E. , 2004/527 K.
“At the end of the trial held due to the “determination” case between the parties; Examination of the Decision19.11.2003 dated and 2001/515-2003/1112 issued by the (Ankara Sixth Employment Court) on the rejection of the case upon request of the plaintiff and defendant SSK attorneys, the Supreme Court 21. 12.4.2004 day and decree No. 2004/501-3531 of the Legal Department ite; {…1- According to the articles in the file, the evidence collected, the compelling reasons on which the judgment is based, all appeals of the defendant Institution must be rejected.
2- The case is related to the Decisiveness request that the damaging insurance event should be considered an occupational accident, and there is no dispute between the parties that the incident occurred at the workplace. The dispute centers on whether the death of the plaintiff’s wife as a result of a heart attack should be considered an accident at work.
This aspect of the case is the law! its basis is Article 11-A of the Law No. 506. According to the said article, an occupational accident is an event that causes the insured person to malfunction physically or spiritually immediately or afterwards. In other words, according to Articles 11 -A-a and b of the above-mentioned Law, it is clear that if a damaging insurance event occurs at the workplace of the insured person and is at the disposal of the employer due to the work being carried out by the employer, there is a legal obligation to be considered an accident at work. The incident in question occurred while the plaintiff was working as an electrician and was at work. The plaintiff died as a result of a heart attack while he was on duty to fix an electrical fault at a local store belonging to his workplace. While it is clear that there is a legal obligation to consider the incident that occurred in this case as an occupational accident, the court’s decision to dismiss the case by citing the report received from Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine is contrary to the procedure and law and is the reason for the violation.
At the end of the retrial, the court resisted the previous decision by the court, while the plaintiff’s appeals aimed at these aspects should be accepted and the judgment overturned on the grounds that they should be overturned instead of the file.
The appellant is: The acting plaintiff and the defendant is the acting SSK.
After it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed during the examination by the General Assembly of the Law and the papers in the file were read, the requirement was discussed:
1.There is no legal benefit in appealing the decision to resist because the appeals of the defendant’s SSK deputy for the first decision were evaluated by the Special Department and the appeal request was rejected. Therefore, the appeal must be rejected.
2.As for the appeal of the plaintiff’s deputy;
The case is related to the determination request that the damaging insurance event should be considered as an occupational accident.
The insured employee Yusuf died of a heart attack on 2.10.2000 during the work on eliminating electrical malfunctions of the workplace worker’s tavern; Since this event was not considered an accident at work by the institution, the lawsuit was filed by the plaintiff, the rightful owner of the deceased.
The defendant SSK and the employer’s deputies defended the rejection of the case.
Based on the report appointed by the court from the expert committee consisting of doctors, the incident was not considered an occupational accident; the case was dismissed. Upon the appeal of the plaintiff and defendant SSK attorneys, the Special Department decided to reject the SSK attorney’s appeals, and the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeals should be accepted and the incident should be considered an occupational accident and the provision should be overturned.
The court’s decision to resist the previous decision was appealed by the plaintiff and the defendant SSK deputies.
There is no dispute that the deceased is the insured employee, and the damaging insurance event occurred at the workplace and during the performance of the work assigned by the employer.
The dispute that has come before the Board (Again) through resistance gathers at the point of whether it is possible to accept death as a result of a heart attack that occurred during work at the workplace as a result of an accident at work.
In order to resolve the dispute, first of all, it is useful to establish the legal bases to be applied and the principles to be applied in determining which incident is an accident at work.
It should be stated immediately that the “work accident” is not defined in the law, but it is specified in which “conditions and situations” an accident will be considered a work accident, limiting it to the “place and time” conditions.
The legal regulation on the subject is the 11th article of the Social Insurance Law No. 506 entitled “Description of Occupational Accidents and Occupational Diseases”. it is contained in the article and in paragraph (A) of this article related to an accident at work in the same way;
“A) An occupational accident is an event that occurs in one of the following conditions and situations and causes the insured person to malfunction physically or spiritually immediately or later.
a) At the time when the insured person is at work,
b) Due to the work being carried out by the employer,
c) The insured person has been sent by the employer to another place with a duty in the past time without doing his/her main job,
d) During the time allotted to give milk to the insured’s child, a lactating woman,
e) During the mass transportation of the insured to the place of work by an employer-provided vehicle…..”
is called.
According to the provision of this article described, an occupational accident is an event that occurs in any of the states and situations specified in the article and causes the insured person to malfunction physically or spiritually immediately or afterwards.
As it is clearly accepted both in practice and in teaching, and as it is clear from the text of the article, the cases listed in this article are not exemplary, but limiting. An insurance incident that does not fall into one of these situations cannot be considered an accident at work. It is necessary and sufficient that any of these conditions are considered to have occurred, and there are no conditions for them to occur together.
In other words, an accident at work is a legal event that must occur at the time of limitation in the article of the law described above and in the occurrence of any of the specified situations.
By the way, it should also be briefly focused on the elements of an occupational accident. They can be listed as follows: An accident victim should be considered insured in the sense of Law No. 506; this insured person should be in an accident, and the accident suffered is the 11th detailed above in Law No. 506. it must occur in one of the states and situations listed in paragraph (A) of article; it must take place in the form of an event that immediately or later Decays the insured person physically or spiritually; there must be an appropriate causal link between this event and the damage suffered by the insured.
It should be stated immediately that the fact that the law defined an occupational accident as an event that caused the insured person harm required that the principle (causality; connection) be considered as an element of an occupational accident. However, the “appropriate causality link” that is sought here should be understood as the overlap of the phenomenon of realization and the result in any of the states and situations sought by the law and the existence of any other restrictive condition, even if it is not in the law, should not be sought.
In short, the mentioned legal regulation should be evaluated within the principles of social security law; If there is compliance with any condition contained in the article, a narrow interpretation should not be made in assessing whether the source of the damaging insurance event is a worker or other factors in its occurrence.
In a concrete case, the insurance worker who died, together with another worker, was assigned to review and repair the plumbing of the workers’ tavern covered by the workplace, where he fainted while the other worker was leaving to buy supplies while doing the work he was given, and fell to the ground and died on the way while being taken to the hospital by ambulance. The employer has not been notified of an accident at work, and the cause of death of the insured person is indicated as myocardial infarction in the statistical form filled out by the hospital. The Defendant Institution also rejected the requests of the rights holders of the beyond for an occupational accident.
However, the fact that an incident has not been considered an occupational accident from the point of view of an institution or employer, whether it occurs due to external factors or suddenly, will not require that the incident is not considered an occupational accident in the face of the explicit provision of the law. Because; As clearly stated in the law, it is necessary and sufficient that the damaging insurance event has occurred in any of the states and situations listed in the law.
More specifically; the death of an insured person by a heart attack while working at work is 11 of the Social Insurance Law No. 506. in the same way that the “occurrence while the insured person is at work” shown in paragraph (a) of article (a) is a suitable event, it is also suitable for the “occurrence due to the work being carried out by the employer” contained in paragraph (b) of the same article and should be considered an occupational accident. Since no other terms or restrictions are included in the article, it is also not possible to impose a restriction that is not in the law through interpretation.
According to the reasons explained above and in the court’s decision to overturn, the decision to overturn the Special Chamber adopted by the General Assembly of Law should be followed and the incident should be considered an accident at work, with contrary thoughts, the incident should be resisted in the previous decision on the grounds of a report that does not count as an accident at work and the case should be rejected in accordance with the procedure and law. For this reason, my trembling should be disturbed.
Result: 1. (1) Above the appeal petition of the defendant SSK deputy. refusal for the reasons described in the paragraph, since it is exempt from the fee, there is no place for receiving the fee,
(2) Above the appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney. with the adoption of the reasons described in the subparagraph, the decision to resist must be made for the reasons shown in the decision to disrupt the Special Apartment.nun 429. according to the article (ON DEGRADATION). it was decided unanimously on 13.10.2004 to return the advance fee of the appeal upon request.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.