BACKGROUND: Identify the deficiencies in the forensic reports prepared by the emergency physicians and to identify the fre quent mistakes in these reports by comparing the forensic reports issued by the emergency physicians in the context of offences against physical integrity and the forensic reports issued by the Second Forensic Medicine Specialization Board for the same forensic cases. METHODS: Existence of the information that should be included in the standard forensic report (name, surname, address, event date, etc.) of 241 cases prepared by emergency physicians who were sent to the Forensic Medicine Second Forensic Medicine Second Specialization Board due to various reasons between February 1, 2019, and May 1, 2019, were reviewed retrospectively. Besides, whether the trauma causing the forensic event stated in these reports is life threatening or not and whether it can be eliminated with simple medical intervention or not were compared with the reports prepared by the Council of Forensic Medicine Forensic Medicine Second Specialization Board for the same events and certain mistakes were determined. RESULTS: Address, examination time, and incident date were not specified in forensic reports issued by emergency physicians with a ratio of 95.5%, 63.9%, and 75.9%, respectively. About 23.2% of forensic reports written by hand were not legible. When the reports prepared by the Council of Forensic Medicine and the emergency physicians for the same forensic events were compared in terms of the presence of life threat and treatment with simple medical intervention, it was shown that the emergency physicians were insuffi cient in determining the life hazard and the simple medical intervention to resolve the trauma causing the forensic event. It was found that the forensic reports issued in tertiary hospitals (education and research hospitals and university hospitals) were more accurate in determining the life hazard and treatment with simple medical intervention status of trauma which caused the forensic event when compared with forensic reports which were issued in primary and secondary line hospitals. CONCLUSION: Regardless of whether the physicians working in the emergency departments are general practitioners or emer gency specialists, their sensitivity and knowledge level regarding the preparation of a forensic report was found to be insufficient. We believe that with the increase of coordinated planned multidisciplinary trainings that include emergency medicine and forensic medicine, the forensic reports that are arranged incorrectly will decrease and the awareness of physicians about the results of forensic reports will increase.