Clinical characteristics and legal outcomes of orthopedic malpractice claims in the constitutional court of Türkiye

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the clinical characteristics, subspecialty distribution, and legal outcomes of orthopedic malpractice claims adjudicated through individual applications to the Turkish Constitutional Court, and to identify patterns of rights-based judicial review in orthopedic litigation.

Materials and Methods: A retrospective descriptive study was conducted using publicly accessible decisions retrieved from the official database of the Turkish Constitutional Court. A systematic search was performed using the keyword “ortopedi,” and results were further refined by applying legal filters related to medical negligence and healthcare-associated harm. A total of 111 decisions were initially identified. After applying malpractice-related filters, 15 decisions underwent full-text evaluation. Of these, 13 cases met the predefined inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. Decisions were assessed for clinical relevance to orthopedic practice and reviewed for clinical context, orthopedic subspecialty involvement, primary malpractice allegations, alleged constitutional rights violations, admissibility status, and final judicial outcomes. Data were extracted using a standardized framework and analyzed descriptively using frequencies and percentages.

Results: Thirteen Constitutional Court decisions involving orthopedic care were included. Trauma-related management constituted the predominant clinical context, followed by postoperative complications and diagnostic delays. The most frequently involved subspecialties were trauma and fracture management, adult reconstructive surgery, and spine care. Constitutional violations were identified in 53.8% of cases (7/13), while the remaining 46.2% resulted either in findings of no violation or inadmissibility. Among cases reviewed on the merits, violations were primarily associated with procedural deficiencies in judicial evaluation, rather than direct determinations of medical fault.

Conclusion: Orthopedic malpractice claims reaching the Turkish Constitutional Court are primarily derived from trauma-related care. These findings should be interpreted within the framework of constitutional judicial review, which evaluates procedural adequacy and protection of fundamental rights rather than directly determining medical negligence. These results underscore the distinction between clinical malpractice litigation and constitutional judicial review in orthopedic disputes.