The Kyivskyi District Court of Odesa ended October with disappointing statistics regarding the consideration of the high-profile case of medical negligence by doctors at the private Odrex clinic. Of the 16 scheduled hearings, only 3 took place in full; the remaining 13 were postponed due to motions by the defense, UNN reports.
Details
On October 29, the Kyivskyi District Court of Odesa finally managed to hold a full hearing in the case of medical negligence by Odrex doctors Vitalii Rusakov and Maryna Bielotserkovska. According to UNN sources, during the hearing, presiding judge Viktor Chaplytskyi warned the defendants’ lawyers that, in the event of any new motions to postpone hearings, he would respond to the situation.
However, the very next day, October 30, the situation repeated itself. According to the publication, approximately 10 minutes before the hearing was due to begin, Vitalii Rusakov’s lawyers filed another motion to postpone it. This time, the reasons were one defense lawyer’s involvement in another court proceeding and the family circumstances of the second lawyer. As a result, the final October hearing also did not take place. The next hearing is scheduled for November 5.
Thus, despite the warning from presiding judge Viktor Chaplytskyi, the court proceedings have once again been halted because of motions by the defense. It is currently unknown whether the latest postponement will have procedural consequences for the lawyers.
This is not the first month in which the schedule of court hearings has effectively failed to ensure an appropriate pace for consideration of the case. In September, the court held only 6 of the 13 scheduled hearings in full. Thus, over two months, only 9 of the 29 scheduled hearings took place, while 20 were postponed.
This trend increasingly raises questions not only about the reasons for the regular absences of participants in the proceedings, but also about the court’s ability to ensure that the criminal case is heard within a reasonable time.
A lawyer’s filing of a motion to postpone a hearing is, in itself, a procedural right provided by law. However, systematic postponements, particularly against the backdrop of the risk that the statute of limitations may expire, raise the question of where the line lies between exercising the right to a defense and possible abuse of procedural rights.
This is despite the fact that presiding judge Viktor Chaplytskyi has already responded to the absences of Vitalii Rusakov’s defense lawyers. In particular, in September he found the reasons for their absence from court hearings between September 1 and 10 unjustified and sent the relevant ruling to the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar. Despite this, the number of postponed hearings only increased in October.
Time is running out: will the court manage to deliver a verdict in the Odrex case?
The systematic postponement of hearings is particularly significant given the risk that the statute of limitations for bringing the defendants to criminal liability may expire.
This concerns criminal proceedings against surgeon Vitalii Rusakov and oncologist Maryna Bielotserkovska, who are charged under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — improper performance of professional duties by a medical professional that caused serious consequences for a patient.
The case concerns the death of Odesa businessman Adnan Kivan, who died in October 2024 while being treated for cancer at the private Odrex clinic.
According to the investigation, following surgery, the doctors may have failed to provide proper treatment for postoperative complications. This may have contributed to the development of sepsis, which, against the background of the cancer, may have led to the patient’s death.
Neither doctor admits guilt. The court must provide the final legal assessment of their actions or omissions.
At the same time, pursuant to Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the limitation period for the offense imputed to the doctors is three years. If the relevant actions or omissions took place in October 2024, the issue of the expiration of the limitation period could arise as early as autumn 2027—absent statutory grounds for suspending or interrupting it.
Moreover, the limitation period is calculated not until the moment the court of first instance delivers its judgment, but until that judgment enters into legal force. Therefore, even a judgment delivered before autumn 2027 will not necessarily eliminate the risk of the limitation period being applied if the case is subsequently considered by the appellate court.