Compensation claims arising from workplace accidents are legal proceedings initiated to remedy the damages suffered by an employee as a result of accidents occurring at the workplace. These cases are of great importance in terms of the employer’s occupational health and safety obligations and the protection of employee rights, ensuring that the consequences of workplace accidents are fairly compensated. In this article, the legal basis of compensation claims arising from workplace accidents, the conditions for filing such claims, statutory time limits, and their application in practice will be examined in detail.
LEGAL DEFINITION
Any event occurring at the workplace or due to the execution of work that results in death or causes physical or mental disability is defined as a workplace accident under Law No. 6331 on Occupational Health and Safety.
In addition, the situations that may lead to a workplace accident are explicitly stated in Article 13 of Law No. 5510 on Social Insurance and General Health Insurance. According to this article:
- While the insured is present at the workplace,
- Due to the work being carried out by the employer, or if the insured works independently in their own name and account, due to the work they are performing,
- During the time an insured employee working for an employer is sent to another location outside the workplace for duty, without performing their main job,
- During the time allocated for a breastfeeding female insured, as defined under Article 4, paragraph 1(a) of this Law, to feed her child in accordance with labor legislation,
- During the commute of insured employees to and from the workplace using a vehicle provided by the employer,
Any event that occurs and immediately or subsequently causes physical or mental disability to the insured is defined as a workplace accident. As understood from the relevant provision, for an incident to be classified as a workplace accident, it is not necessary for it to occur at the workplace; it is sufficient if it occurs during the execution of work or during the commute to and from the workplace using a vehicle provided by the employer. In addition, accidents that occur during time spent at the workplace, while being sent outside the workplace for duty, or during special periods such as breastfeeding breaks required by labor legislation, are also considered workplace accidents. Compensation claims arising from workplace accidents are lawsuits filed to ensure that the employer compensates the damages suffered by the employee in case of physical or psychological harm resulting from these accidents.
COMPENSATION CLAIMS THAT CAN BE DEMANDED DUE TO WORKPLACE ACCIDENTS
The damages resulting from a workplace accident give rise to different types of compensation depending on the nature of the incident. In the event of the employee’s death, heirs and dependents may claim material compensation, moral compensation, and loss of support compensation. In the case of the employee’s injury, the employee may claim material and moral compensation, temporary incapacity compensation, or permanent incapacity compensation.
1- In the event of the employee’s death: If an employee loses their life as a result of a workplace accident, the employee’s heirs and dependents can claim various compensations to cover the material and moral damages they have suffered. These compensations are generally categorized under three main headings: material compensation, moral compensation, and loss of support compensation
- Material Compensation: In the event of the employee’s death, the damages and losses that can be claimed through a material compensation lawsuit are regulated by Article 53 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. According to this provision, in case of death, funeral expenses, medical expenses, and the losses suffered by those deprived of the deceased’s support are the items that can be claimed through a material compensation lawsuit.
- Moral Compensation: Moral compensation is intended to remedy the psychological and emotional damages experienced by the relatives of an employee due to their death. Regulated under Article 56 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, this type of compensation aims to address the pain, grief, sorrow, and psychological distress suffered by the deceased employee’s relatives. The amount of moral compensation is determined by the court based on factors such as the nature of the incident.
- Loss of Support Compensation: Loss of support compensation is a type of compensation that arises only in the event of the employee’s death due to a workplace accident. This compensation covers the damages suffered by those who were dependent on the deceased for support, when such support ceases as a result of the death. Anyone who received support from the deceased while they were alive, as well as those who would potentially benefit from this support in the future, has the right to claim loss of support compensation. In determining the amount of compensation, all factors are considered, including the employee’s net income, the proportion of fault between parties, and the share of income that the dependents would have received.
2- In the event of the employee’s injury: If an employee is injured as a result of a workplace accident, they can file various compensation claims to cover both the physical and psychological damages suffered and the financial losses incurred during the period of incapacity. These compensations are generally examined under the following categories:
- Material Compensation: Material compensation due to a workplace accident is claimed to cover the injured employee’s financial and objective losses that can be quantified, such as medical expenses, loss of earnings, reduction or loss of working capacity, and losses arising from the disruption of their economic future.
- Moral Compensation: Moral compensation can be claimed for the physical pain, psychological trauma, and decreased quality of life experienced by the employee as a result of a workplace injury. This compensation is intended to address the physical suffering, psychological distress, and negative impacts on the employee’s social life. The amount of moral compensation is determined based on the severity of the injury, the extent of the difficulties experienced by the employee, and the court’s discretion.
HOW IS WORKPLACE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CALCULATED?
As explained above, the compensations that can be claimed due to a workplace accident can basically be requested under two categories in the event of death and three categories in the event of injury, excluding moral compensation. These compensation items are as follows: in the case of death, loss of support and other material compensations; in the case of injury, medical expenses, temporary incapacity compensation, and permanent incapacity compensation.
- Medical Expenses consist of all costs incurred by the injured person for the treatment process, including medications, hospital fees, transportation, caregiver costs, and similar expenses. These expenses are calculated after deducting the parties’ respective fault ratios.
- Temporary incapacity compensation is based on the income loss experienced during the period in which the person is completely unable to work. This income loss is also calculated after applying the deduction for the parties’ respective fault ratios.
- Permanent incapacity compensation represents the loss of working capacity the person will experience throughout their life according to their disability rate. In calculating permanent incapacity compensation, the remaining life expectancy and deduction ratios are considered according to the TRH-2010 table. It should also be noted that the calculation is based on the average of the employee’s last annual income if they are working; if not, it is calculated based on the minimum wage.
EXAMPLE CALCULATION
Case: Ahmet, a 35-year-old employee working at a company named X with a gross salary of 40,000 TL, suffered a workplace accident during his work. As a result of the accident, Ahmet lost three toes and was injured to the extent that he could not work for three months and required a caregiver. Additionally, due to the accident, he suffered a 20% loss of work capacity for the remainder of his life. The disability rate is 20%. In the formation of this accident, the employer is 60% at fault, while Ahmet is 40% at fault.
Considering the present case, the material compensations that Ahmet can claim and their calculations are as follows:
1- Medical Expenses: Ahmet can claim compensation from the employer for all hospital bills, medication costs, prosthetics or other medical device expenses, and the three-month caregiver costs incurred due to the incident under the category of medical expenses. However, the claimable medical expenses will be calculated after applying the deduction for the parties’ respective fault ratios. In this specific case, Ahmet is 40% at fault for the occurrence of the workplace accident, while the employer is 60% at fault. Accordingly, considering the fault ratios, Ahmet can claim only 60% of the expenses from the employer. Therefore, if Ahmet’s total expenses amount to approximately 100,000 TL, the compensable amount from the employer would be 60,000 TL.
2- Temporary Incapacity Loss: Ahmet was completely incapacitated and unable to earn income during his three-month recovery period. When calculating Ahmet’s temporary incapacity loss, the fault ratios will be applied to his three months’ salary. Therefore, Ahmet has the right to claim compensation of (40,000 * 3) * (60/100) = 72,000 TL.
3- Permanent Incapacity Loss: According to the TRH-2010 life table, Ahmet, aged 35, has a remaining life expectancy of 39.67 years. If we calculate the permanent incapacity loss for Ahmet, who will have permanent disability throughout his life, the result will be: (39.67 * 12 * 40,000) * (2/100) * (60/100) = 2,284,992 TL.
**It should be noted that this calculation method is presented hypothetically for simplicity. The remaining life expectancy is divided into active and passive periods, and for future periods, the compensation is calculated using additional variables with progressive rent methods and discounting techniques to determine the rightful compensation.
NOTIFICATION TO THE INSTITUTION AND DECLARATORY LAWSUIT
For an incident to be legally considered a “work accident,” it is not sufficient that it occurred merely at the workplace or during the course of work. The employer is obliged to notify the Social Security Institution (SGK) in writing within three business days from the moment they become aware of the work accident. This notification can be made directly to the institution’s officials or sent via registered mail. If the employer fails to make this notification, the employee has the right to apply directly to the Social Security Institution with the available documents and request recognition of the incident as a work accident.
For the incident to be recognized as a work accident, the Social Security Institution must officially accept it as such under the relevant legislation, or if the SGK does not recognize it, a declaratory lawsuit for the determination of a work accident must be filed before the competent courts.
If a compensation lawsuit based on a work accident is filed without first establishing the existence of the work accident, the court will first examine whether a work accident occurred. In this context, the plaintiff is given time to apply to the SGK, and if the application is rejected, to file a lawsuit before the competent court for the determination of the work accident. If a lawsuit is filed to determine the existence of a work accident, this case is considered a preliminary matter in relation to the compensation lawsuit.
LAWSUIT PROCESS AND MEDIATION
In compensation lawsuits arising from a work accident, the statute of limitations is 10 years from the date the wrongful act occurred, in accordance with Article 146 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. However, it should be noted that if a criminal case has been filed due to the work accident and the statute of limitations specified in the criminal case is longer than that of the compensation case, then the statute of limitations for the compensation case will follow the one applicable to the criminal case.
For example, if a worker dies due to an electric shock at the workplace, a criminal case is filed for “causing death by negligence,” which has a 15-year statute of limitations. In this case, the statute of limitations for the compensation claim will be applied based on the 15-year limitation of the criminal case. Conversely, if an electric shock at the same workplace results in the worker’s injury, the criminal case will be for “causing injury by negligence,” which has an 8-year statute of limitations. In this situation, the statute of limitations for the compensation lawsuit will not follow the criminal case but will be 10 years according to the general provision of the Turkish Code of Obligations.
Similarly, compensation claims arising from work accidents are not subject to the mandatory mediation process, and it is possible to file a compensation lawsuit directly for a work accident without initiating mediation.
COMPETENT AND JURISDICTIONAL COURT
In compensation cases arising from a work accident, the competent court is the Labor Court, and jurisdiction lies with the court of the employer’s residence or the location where the accident occurred.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
“…In cases concerning compensation for damages not covered by the Institution (compensation lawsuits), the first matter to be determined is whether the damaging insurance event qualifies as a work accident, which is initially established by the Institution. If the Institution does not recognize an event as a work accident, the concerned parties may file a work accident determination lawsuit, naming the Institution alongside the employer as a defendant. Conversely, if the Institution recognizes an event as a work accident, the parties may still request from the courts a determination that the event is not a work accident by filing a lawsuit including the Institution as a defendant. Clearly establishing whether an event constitutes a work accident is important because it affects the courts’ jurisdiction over the proceedings related to the damaging event. This dispute—whether the event is a work accident or not—depends first on the investigation conducted by the Institution and then on the results of the determination lawsuits filed by the parties, making it a preliminary matter that must be resolved first in compensation cases.
In the concrete case, the alleged work accident was not reported to the Institution for notification or determination of the permanent incapacity rate, and the plaintiff was not given a preliminary opportunity to apply to the Institution for this purpose. Therefore, the decision to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the event could not be classified as a work accident due to incomplete investigation was erroneous.
The procedure to follow is: provide the plaintiff a preliminary opportunity to apply to the Institution to determine whether the event was recognized as a work accident; if the Institution does not classify the event as a work accident, give the plaintiff a preliminary opportunity to file a “work accident determination” lawsuit against the Institution and the employer, as it affects their entitlements, make this determination lawsuit a preliminary issue for the current case, and, based on the result of the preliminary process, evaluate all evidence together and render a decision accordingly…” (Supreme Court of Appeals, 21st Civil Chamber, 2015/2558 E., 2015/5241 K., 16.03.2015)
“…The definition of a work accident is set forth in Article 11 of Law No. 506 and Article 13 of Law No. 5510. According to Article 11 of Law No. 506, which was in force on 13.01.2008, the date of the incident, a work accident is defined as any event occurring while the insured is at the workplace, due to work being carried out by the employer, during the time the insured spends away from their main job due to being sent elsewhere by the employer, during the time allotted for a nursing female employee to breastfeed her child, or while the insured is being transported collectively by a vehicle provided by the employer to the place of work, which immediately or subsequently causes physical or psychological harm to the insured.
Moreover, the Institution’s work accident investigation reports are considered valid documents unless proven otherwise. If, as a result of an investigation conducted by the Institution, a damaging event is recognized as a work accident, this classification can only be contested through judicial proceedings. In lawsuits seeking a determination that an event accepted as a work accident by the Institution is not a work accident, it is mandatory to include the Social Security Institution (SGK) and the relevant employer as defendants, as their legal interests are affected.
From the case file, it is understood that the event on 13.01.2008 was recognized as a work accident by the Institution, and the injured party received a payment from the work accident insurance branch corresponding to 40.20% disability. Accordingly, assessing or determining that the incident was not a work accident—as explained above—can only be done through a separate “determination that it is not a work accident” lawsuit, if claimed otherwise. Determination lawsuits regarding whether an event is not a work accident partially concern the SGK’s rights, and SGK is not a party in compensation cases. Therefore, it was incorrect for the Court to dismiss this case by evaluating it as not a work accident when the Institution was not a party.
Furthermore, even if the incident were not a work accident, since an unlawful act exists, it is incorrect for the Labor Court to issue a substantive judgment in a case that is not a work accident. The competent authority for such matters would be the general civil courts (Courts of First Instance), and ignoring this is also erroneous.
The correct procedure is to first ask the defendant whether they will file a lawsuit to determine that the 13.01.2008 incident was not a work accident. If the defendant declares that they will file such a lawsuit, the outcome of this determination lawsuit should be awaited. If it is confirmed through this lawsuit that the event was not a work accident, a lack-of-jurisdiction decision should be issued, and the file should be referred to the Court of First Instance. Otherwise, the court should examine the merits of the case, evaluating all evidence together and issuing a decision accordingly.
Therefore, the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeals aimed at these points should be accepted, and the judgment should be overturned…” (Supreme Court of Appeals, 21st Civil Chamber, 2013/15008 E., 2013/21708 K., 25.11.2013)
“…The case concerns the request to determine that the accident experienced by the defendant on 18.06.1998 was not a work accident. The Court dismissed the case on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired.
Such lawsuits requesting the determination of a work accident are based on Article 11 of Law No. 506 (Article 13 of Law No. 5510). According to the cited provision, a work accident is defined as: a) occurring while the insured is at the workplace, b) arising due to work carried out by the employer, c) occurring during the time the insured spends away from their main job due to being assigned elsewhere by the employer, or d) occurring while the insured is transported collectively by a vehicle provided by the employer to the workplace, which immediately or subsequently causes physical or psychological harm.
For a damaging insured event to be considered a work accident, two conditions must be met: 1) the person affected by the event must be insured, and 2) the event must occur in one of the limited circumstances specified in the article. In other words, both conditions must be satisfied simultaneously for the event to qualify as a work accident. There is no specially prescribed method of proof for work accident determination cases, and they can be proven with any type of evidence.
From the records and documents in the file, in the claim filed by SGK for institutional damages on 01.07.2008, the defendant repeatedly objected that the incident was not a work accident. The court granted time for … to respond, and … filed a lawsuit on 01.02.2010 against SGK and the employer … Müh. Ltd. Şti., and another lawsuit on 30.07.2010 against the injured party requesting a determination that the incident was not a work accident. Subsequently, these lawsuits were merged with the institutional damage claim, and in the final stage of proceedings, the claims regarding the determination that the incident was not a work accident were separated and recorded under a new case. The case was dismissed on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired.
In the present case, requests to determine whether an incident constitutes a work accident are preliminary issues in related compensation cases. Since the judgment may involve linking income pursuant to Article 99 of Law No. 506 if necessary, such requests are not subject to the statute of limitations. Considering that there is no statute of limitations for determining whether an event is a work accident, the case should have been decided on its merits, and its dismissal was therefore incorrect…” (Supreme Court of Appeals, 21st Civil Chamber, 2016/20062 E., 2018/3152 K., 02.04.2018)
“…The conditions for acquiring the status of an insured person under Law No. 5510 are primarily summarized under three main headings. These are: a) the employment relationship is generally based on a service contract, b) the work is performed at the employer’s premises, and c) the person is not among those explicitly excluded from being considered insured under the law. To be considered insured, all these conditions must be present simultaneously.
Article 13 of Law No. 5510 defines a work accident as:
a) occurring while the insured is at the workplace,
b) arising due to work carried out by the employer, or if the insured works independently on their own account, due to the work they perform,
c) occurring during the time the insured spends away from their main job because they are assigned to another location by the employer,
d) occurring during the time a female insured worker, covered under Article 4, paragraph 1(a), is allowed to breastfeed her child according to labor legislation,
e) occurring while insured persons are being transported by a vehicle provided by the employer to and from the workplace, causing immediate or subsequent physical or psychological harm to the insured.
For an event to be recognized as a work accident, two conditions must be met: the person affected by the event must be insured under Article 4 of Law No. 5510, and the event must occur under one of the limited circumstances specified in Article 13 of the same law. In other words, both conditions must occur together for the event to qualify as a work accident.
In light of this information, upon examining the current case file, institutional records, and inspector reports, it is understood that the claim regarding the accident in question was accepted by the institution, and the incident experienced by the insured was recognized as a work accident. Accordingly, the date on which the institution recognized the incident as a work accident should be investigated. If the accident was deemed a work accident by the institution prior to the filing of the lawsuit, the plaintiff has no legal interest in filing the case. If the accident was recognized as a work accident during the proceedings, the case would become moot. Issuing a written judgment based on incomplete investigation without considering these aspects is contrary to procedure and law and constitutes grounds for reversal.
Therefore, the appeal of the defendant institution’s attorney should be accepted, and the judgment should be overturned…” (Supreme Court of Appeals, 10th Civil Chamber, 2019/439 E., 2019/7910 K., 24.10.2019)
Lawyer. Gökhan AKGÜL & Lawyer. Yasemin ERAK
ANTALYA WORKERS’ LAWYER – ANTALYA LABOR LAW ATTORNEY
Work accident compensation lawsuits are filed to recover the material and moral damages an employee suffers as a result of accidents at the workplace. Working with a specialized lawyer is crucial in this process to avoid losing rights and to manage the legal procedure correctly. In work accident cases, every stage—from determining the damages suffered by the employee to establishing the degree of fault—must be handled meticulously. Our law firm in Antalya, staffed with experienced attorneys, provides professional guidance and legal support throughout the work accident compensation process, aiming to secure the highest possible compensation for our clients. Therefore, victims of work accidents can contact us to defend their rights most effectively and to ensure the process is carefully monitored.
