Precedent-setting court ruling... Cancer patient wins case: SSI will pay
In İzmir, 75-year-old C.A., who is undergoing treatment for skin cancer, challenged the requirement to pay for a medication not covered by the Social Security Institution (SSI) reimbursement list. The Labor Court ruled that all costs of the medication must be covered by the Social Security Institution. The decision may set a precedent for patients in similar situations.
12punto
75-year-old C.A., who lives in the Karşıyaka district of İzmir, was diagnosed with skin cancer approximately 1.5 years ago. The medication prescribed by his doctor as part of his treatment was provided to the patient at a cost because it was not on the Social Security Institution's reimbursement list. Struggling to afford this medication, which costs 115 thousand liras per cycle, C.A. initiated a legal battle after making the payment.
CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION, MEDICATION COST MUST BE COVERED BY THE SSI
As a result of the lawsuit filed by C.A. through his lawyer at the İzmir 1st Labor Court, the court found the patient to be in the right. The court's decision emphasized the "right to a healthy life" enshrined in Article 56 of the Constitution. The ruling stated that the medication in question is essential for treatment and therefore must be provided by the state without interruption.
HAD PREVIOUSLY SURVIVED LUNG CANCER
Lawyer Mustafa Kaptan, a member of the Consumer Confederation Legal Commission who handled the case, stated that his client had previously survived lung cancer and that his body was in a condition where it could not withstand a new chemotherapy process. Pointing to the importance of the expensive medication suggested as an alternative treatment, Kaptan said the following:
“Our patient had previously had lung cancer, and chemotherapy had caused serious damage to his body. The process that led to the amputation of two toes on his foot also stems from this. We filed a lawsuit when the SSI did not cover the medication recommended by the doctor for his treatment. The court decided both that the cost of the 2 doses of medication the patient had paid for out of his own pocket to date should be refunded and that the remaining doses should be provided free of charge.”
PATIENTS IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS MAY ALSO BENEFIT
Lawyer Mustafa Kaptan emphasized that this decision carries the nature of a precedent not only for his client but also for other patients in the same situation:
“Not covering the treatment of a 75-year-old patient is clearly contrary to the principle of a social state. This decision is promising not only for our client but for all patients in similar situations. It has been an important step in preventing such grievances.”