One of the key hearings in the case of medical negligence by doctors at the Odrex clinic was supposed to take place at the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa. According to the investigation, their actions or omissions could have led to the death of businessman Adnan Kivan. The court planned to proceed to the examination of medical evidence and hear from an independent expert oncologist. However, instead, the defense of one of the accused doctors initiated the transfer of the case to another court. Lawyers for the victims called such actions an attempt to delay the proceedings. Read more in the UNN article on why the interrogation of a medical expert is one of the key stages in medical negligence cases and what the accused doctors might be afraid of.
The criminal proceedings involve doctors from the Odrex clinic, Vitaliy Rusakov and Maryna Belotserkovska, who has already been dismissed from the medical facility. They are charged under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine – improper performance of professional duties by a medical worker, which could have caused serious consequences for the patient.
It was expected that during the latest hearing, the court would hear from an independent medical expert, a clinical oncologist, the general director of the Odesa Regional Center, and a member of the Association of Oncologists of Ukraine. It was the expert's findings that were to become one of the key elements in assessing whether the actions of the accused doctors complied with medical protocols and treatment standards. In essence, the expert's testimony was supposed to be the moment when the court moved from procedural disputes to evaluating the direct medical actions of the accused doctors.
However, the defense of the accused Vitaliy Rusakov filed a motion to refer the criminal proceedings to another court. The lawyers' argument was that one of the victim's lawyers worked at the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa between 2016 and 2020. Judge Larysa Pereverzeva decided to submit a petition to the Odesa Court of Appeal to resolve the issue of changing jurisdiction. As a result, instead of moving to the examination of medical evidence and the interrogation of an oncology specialist, the trial was again focused on a procedural issue.
Lawyers for the victims explicitly stated that they see signs of delaying the case in such actions.
"I object to the granting of the motion; I consider it absolutely groundless, as no evidence was provided of a direct connection between the work of lawyer Granin and Judge Pereverzeva. I believe no justified grounds were provided for transferring the case to another court. I regard the behavior itself and this motion as a delay of the trial. I ask the court to deny this motion,"
It is telling that the issue of changing the court was initiated exactly at the moment when the consideration of the case was supposed to move to the medical component – the assessment of the doctors' actions, the compliance of the treatment with clinical protocols, and the establishment of a causal link between the medics' decisions and the consequences for the patient.
Why Ukrainian patients are creating public initiatives like StopOdrex27.04.26, 13:09
Managing partner of the Law Firm "Maximal Protection" Maksym Herasko explained that without involving specialized medical experts, it is virtually impossible to establish an objective picture in such proceedings.
"It is essential to involve a medical expert because without medical specialists, it is impossible to establish whether there was a doctor's error or not. In any case, it is necessary to conduct a forensic medical examination and pose questions to experts and specialists. After all, neither judges nor lawyers are specialists. In essence, they encounter medical cases there, but they did not study for 5 years at Bogomolets University, they did not complete an internship. They do not have a specialized education,"
In fact, it is the findings of medical experts in such cases that become one of the key pieces of evidence for the court. They allow for the establishment of whether the doctor's actions were professional, whether they complied with clinical protocols, and whether these specific actions could have affected the patient's condition.
As a reminder
This is not the first instance of procedural actions in the case of Adnan Kivan's death that affect the timeline of the proceedings. Previously, Vitaliy Rusakov's defense had already filed a motion to recuse the presiding judge Larysa Pereverzeva, which effectively put the case on pause. Also, preparatory hearings in the proceedings have been repeatedly postponed due to the failure of Rusakov's lawyers to appear. Legal experts call such motions one of the classic mechanisms for delaying the trial in high-profile cases.