Criminal liability of a doctor under Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is possible only after a detailed examination of evidence, medical documentation, and conclusions of forensic medical examinations. The court must establish whether there was a causal link between the actions of medical professionals and the patient's death. However, in the high-profile case of doctors from the private clinic Odrex, this process seems to be deliberately delayed. Read about what is happening at the current stage of the case in the material by UNN.
The Kyiv District Court of Odesa was unable to continue the hearing of the criminal case against doctors of the private clinic Odrex, Vitalii Rusakov and Maryna Bielotserkovska, who are accused of improper performance of professional duties by medical workers (Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
According to the investigation, after the surgery performed on patient Adnan Kivan, the doctors may not have prescribed him the necessary antibacterial therapy and may have inadequately responded to postoperative complications. According to the conclusions of the forensic medical examination, this could have led to the development of sepsis and the patient's death. The accused doctors do not admit their guilt.
However, the court was unable to proceed to verify these circumstances after more than 8 months of proceedings. The reasons for this are more than a dozen motions from the defense side, which it files at almost every hearing.
As noted by lawyer Oleksandr Marchenko, to establish a doctor's guilt, the mere fact of a patient's death is not enough. The court must examine:
- the existence of a legally defined professional duty to act in a certain manner;
- the actual violation of this duty — by action or inaction;
- severe consequences for the patient — health disorder or death;
- the causal link between the violation and the consequence;
- the subjective element in the form of negligence — criminal overconfidence or criminal carelessness.
If at least one of these elements is not proven, the corpus delicti is absent. That is, without examining medical documentation, clinical protocols, expert opinions, and other evidence, the court cannot render a lawful and reasoned decision.
Marchenko also draws attention to the fact that the practice of the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court has already formed a clear approach to evaluating such cases.
"An analysis of the practice of the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court shows a steady trend towards evaluating a doctor's behavior through the prism of how a careful, qualified specialist of a similar specialization would have acted under the same conditions of time, resources, and information — essentially, the standard of a reasonable and conscientious doctor," the lawyer notes.
As an example, the lawyer cites the ruling of the Supreme Court of March 18, 2026, in case No. 237/2797/16. In it, the doctor was found guilty under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine after it was established that he did not respond appropriately to the patient's complaints, did not prescribe the necessary examinations, and did not involve a specialized specialist, despite the requirements of the clinical protocol. The Supreme Court emphasized: when evaluating a doctor's actions, the decisive factor is not the mere fact of severe consequences, but whether a careful and qualified specialist, under the specific circumstances, should have recognized the clinical signs and acted in accordance with professional standards.
Thus, the possible tactic of the defense side, which seems to have focused on delaying instead of the fastest possible examination of evidence, may suggest that the doctors are aware of their own mistakes. After all, if the accused are confident that they acted in accordance with medical standards — why not examine the evidence?
Instead, each new postponement works towards a different procedural outcome. The longer the court delays moving to the examination of evidence, the closer the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution becomes. In such a case, the criminal case may be closed without a verdict, even if the evidence points to the guilt of the accused.
How an accused doctor from Odrex criticizes the presiding judge in his case
Meanwhile, the accused surgeon Vitaliy Rusakov continues to publicly criticize the court and the presiding judge Viktor Chaplytskyi. The surgeon claims that the court's refusal to return the indictment to the prosecutor allegedly indicates the court's "special favor" toward the prosecution.
In effect, the accused surgeon claims that if the court does not grant the procedural motions of the defense, it is a sign of its bias. A similar position was voiced during court hearings by Rusakov's lawyers, who stated: "We are not saying that the court is unfavorable to us. We are saying that the court is overly favorable to the prosecution."