In the high-profile case of medical negligence by doctors at the Odrex clinic, which may have led to the death of businessman Adnan Kivan, the court has yet to proceed to one of the key stages – the examination of medical evidence and the interrogation of specialized experts. Instead, the defense of the accused Vitaliy Rusakov initiated a motion to transfer the case to another court at the exact moment when an independent expert oncologist was supposed to appear in the process. What exactly medical experts can establish, what violations the expertise can reveal, and why the accused doctors might be uninterested in the court moving to the examination of evidence, read in the material by UNN.
In criminal proceedings regarding medical negligence, the court effectively cannot provide a legal assessment of the medics' actions without the conclusions of specialized experts. After all, only specialists are capable of establishing whether the diagnosis was timely, whether the treatment complied with clinical protocols, whether the doctors reacted correctly to complications, and whether time critical for the patient was lost.
Separately, experts analyze medical documentation: the medical history, examination results, drug prescriptions, records of doctors on duty, documentation of complications, and post-operative follow-up. It is these documents that allow for a step-by-step reconstruction of the medics' actions and verification of whether they met the standards of medical care.
Another key task of the expertise is to establish a causal link between the doctors' actions and the consequences for the patient. A medical expert in court must answer the main question: could specific decisions or inaction by the medics have influenced the deterioration of the person's condition and led to death?
It was to this stage that the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa was supposed to proceed in the case of medical negligence by Odrex clinic doctors 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 grave consequences for the patient.
According to the investigation, after the surgery, businessman Adnan Kivan may not have been prescribed the necessary antibacterial therapy and there may have been a failure to properly respond to post-operative complications.
However, at this very moment, Vitaliy Rusakov's defense filed a motion to transfer the criminal proceedings to another court. The lawyers' argument was that the representative of the victim's side, Daniil Granin, worked at the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa between 2016 and 2020.
Judge Larysa Pereverzeva decided to send a submission to the Odesa Court of Appeal to resolve the issue of changing jurisdiction. As a result, instead of moving to the analysis of medical evidence, the process switched back to a procedural issue.
The lawyer for the victim's side, Oleksandr Dimohlov, explicitly stated in court that he views such actions as a delay of the process.
"I consider the motion absolutely unfounded, 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 stalling of the judicial review,"
In legal circles, such motions are considered one of the most common tools for delaying criminal proceedings. Especially in cases where further consideration could move to the direct analysis of evidence.
After all, it is after the transition to the medical part of the case that public statements, emotional video blogs, and attempts to create an image of a "victim of the system" effectively cease to matter. The focus shifts to documents, expert conclusions, and the specific actions of the doctors.
As a reminder
The accused Odrex clinic doctor Rusakov continues an active public campaign on his YouTube blog, where he criticizes the judicial process and presents his own interpretation of events. After the last hearing, he published a video in which he stated that "finally" the prosecution had involved an expert oncologist.
However, the appearance of a medical expert at this stage is a standard procedure for examining medical evidence. And the paradox of the situation is that it was the defense side, with its motion, that effectively postponed the court's transition to this stage.
Against this background, one might get the impression that the defense is interested in maximizing the delay of the moment when the court moves from emotional discussions to a professional analysis of medical documents and the doctors' actions.
After all, it is the expert conclusions that must ultimately provide the answer to the main question of this criminal proceeding – whether there were violations in the actions of doctors Rusakov and Belotserkovska that could have cost Adnan Kivan his life.