Forensic medical examination in cases of medical negligence often becomes the stage where the public rhetoric of the accused doctors—"I am not guilty"—stops working. It is the specialized expert who allows the court to see the real picture of the treatment: whether the diagnosis was correct, whether complications were responded to in time, whether clinical protocols were followed, and whether the actions of the medical staff could have led to the patient's death. Instead, attempts to delay the hearing of medical experts in court may be linked precisely to a reluctance to move to the stage where the center of the process will not be the emotional statements of the accused, but expert conclusions and medical documents, UNN reports.
In cases of medical negligence, some of the most important pieces of evidence are the forensic medical examination and the testimony of a specialized expert. After all, judges do not have specialized medical knowledge and cannot independently determine whether a doctor correctly diagnosed a patient, chose the right treatment tactics, or responded appropriately to post-operative complications.
Judges are experts in the field of law, but they do not possess specialized medical knowledge. They cannot independently assess whether a medical procedure was performed correctly or whether a drug dosage was properly selected. An expert's conclusion is an independent source of evidence. In simple terms, an expert opinion translates complex biological and clinical processes into the language of legal facts,
It is the medical expert who evaluates the entire chain of medical care—from diagnosis to the maintenance of medical records.
The expert commission thoroughly evaluates the diagnostic stage, the treatment-tactical stage, the technical stage, the organizational stage, and defects in medical record-keeping, as the documentation is the primary object of the study,
Separately, the professor emphasizes that clinical protocols are not a "suggestion" for a doctor that can be ignored without consequences.
Medical standards and clinical protocols are the basic criteria by which experts evaluate the adequacy or inadequacy of a doctor's actions. Any deviation from the standard must be scientifically justified and mandatory recorded in the medical documentation with an explanation of the reasons. If a doctor deviated from the protocol without objective medical grounds, it is qualified by the expert as a defect in the provision of medical care,
And it is these facts that cast a shadow on the actions of the defense in the case of medical negligence by doctors at the Odrex clinic, which could have led to the death of patient Adnan Kivan. This refers to the criminal proceedings against doctors Vitaliy Rusakov and Maryna Belotserkovska, who are being tried under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine—improper performance of professional duties by a medical worker.
According to the investigation, after surgery at the Odrex clinic, the patient may not have been prescribed the necessary antibacterial therapy and post-operative complications may not have been properly addressed. As a result, according to the findings of the forensic examination, the patient developed sepsis, which could have been the cause of death.
The key stage of the process was supposed to be the examination of medical evidence and the hearing of an independent expert oncologist, a point the court took over 5 months to reach. It was after this that it should have become clear: whether the doctors' actions complied with clinical protocols and whether this was properly recorded in the documents, whether there were complications from the treatment and what the doctors' reaction to them was, and whether there is a causal link between the actions (or inaction) of the medics and the death of Adnan Kivan.
However, just before moving to this stage, the defense of one of the accused doctors initiated a change of venue. As a result, the case was transferred from the Prymorskyi to the Kyivskyi District Court of Odesa, so the consideration of the proceedings is now effectively starting from scratch.
Medical lawyer Dmytro Kasianenko points out that formally, such procedural actions are a right of the defense. However, the context in which they occur may raise questions.
Motions to change the court, disqualify a judge, or other procedural statements are in themselves a right of the defense. But if such actions are filed precisely before the interrogation of a key expert, are repeated systematically, and lack proper evidentiary justification, it may already look like a delay of the proceedings or an abuse of procedural rights,
The lawyer also points out that delaying the process may have a very practical goal for the accused—to last until the expiration of the statute of limitations.
The ultimate goal of such defense tactics may not just be postponing hearings, but bringing the case to the expiration of the statute of limitations so that the individual avoids real criminal liability. In such cases, an additional consequence of punishment can be a restriction on the right to engage in medical activities. But if the proceedings are closed due to the statute of limitations, such a restriction may effectively never occur,
Thus, the very moment the court moves to the analysis of medical evidence becomes the point after which the entire public line of defense collapses. After all, the court evaluates not emotional statements or attempts to create an image of a "victim doctor," but specific entries in medical records, drug prescriptions, time intervals between symptoms and the reaction of medics, compliance with clinical protocols, and the conclusions of independent experts.
And if defects in treatment or undocumented deviations from standards are already recorded in the documents, it is the expert who becomes the person who directly points out these violations to the court and explains their consequences for the patient.
As a reminder
Over the past months, the doctor from the Odrex clinic accused in the case has been conducting an active public campaign around the criminal proceedings. In his blogs and social media, the surgeon from the Odesa clinic regularly claims his innocence, criticizes the judicial process, and tries to convince the audience that the case against him is allegedly an "attack on all of medicine."