Defense of Odrex doctor accused of medical negligence disrupts interrogation of medical expert in Adnan Kivan death case
Kyiv • UNN
In the case concerning the death of Adnan Kivan, the court was set to proceed with the examination of medical evidence and hear from an independent specialist oncologist, who was to evaluate the actions of the accused doctors in terms of medical protocols and treatment standards. Instead, the defense for the Odrex doctor initiated a motion to transfer the case to another court. Lawyers for the victims see these actions as signs of a deliberate attempt to delay the judicial process.
During the latest hearing in the medical negligence case involving doctors from the Odrex clinic, which could have caused the death of businessman Adnan Kivan, the court was set to move to a crucial stage of examining evidence with the involvement of an independent oncology expert. However, the session began with a motion from the lawyers of one of the accused doctors to change the court venue. Lawyers for the victims see signs of stalling tactics in the opponents' actions, UNN reports.
In the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa, a regular hearing took place in the criminal proceedings against Odrex clinic doctors Vitaliy Rusakov and the already dismissed Maryna Belotserkovska, who are accused 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.
It was expected that during this session, the court would proceed to the examination of factual evidence and hear from a specialist in the field of oncology. An expert arrived at the court—the Director General of the Odesa Regional Center, a member of the Association of Oncologists of Ukraine, and a clinical oncologist by specialization. Her involvement is of great importance for assessing the doctors' actions from the perspective of medical standards and treatment protocols.
It was at this stage that the court was supposed to receive a professional assessment of whether the actions of the accused doctors complied with medical protocols and treatment standards, and whether there could be signs of improper performance of professional duties in their actions during the treatment of Adnan Kivan.
However, at the beginning of the session, the defense for the accused Odrex clinic doctor Vitaliy Rusakov filed a motion to transfer the criminal proceedings from one court to another. The argument was that the representative of the victims, lawyer Daniil Granin, worked at the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa between 2016 and 2020.
"Your Honor, we have filed a motion with the registry; this motion may impede our trial. We have a motion to transfer the criminal proceedings from one court to another. The victims in the specified criminal proceedings are the wife of the deceased Mr. Adnan Kivan and the son of the deceased. Their interests in this case are represented by lawyer Daniil Vitaliyovych Granin. According to Part 4 of Article 58 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the representative of the victim, as a participant in criminal proceedings, enjoys all the rights of the victim, except for those defined by law exclusively for the victim themselves. A systematic analysis of this norm in combination with paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Article 34 of the CPC indicates that the legislative guarantee of court impartiality should also extend to cases where not only the victim himself but also his representative worked in the court, as the latter is the direct implementer of the procedural rights of the victim himself," the lawyer for the accused doctor Rusakov stated at the beginning of the court session.
Lawyers for the victim side objected to such a motion. In particular, lawyer Granin stated that he had no labor relations with the specific composition of the court currently hearing the case, and he viewed the motion itself as an element of Rusakov's defense strategy.
"I believe that this is a strategy, a line of defense for Mr. Rusakov. Personally, in my opinion, these are unacceptable actions on the part of the lawyers. If I did an internship at the prosecutor's office, if I did an internship not in the Prymorskyi court, but in the Kyivskyi or Khadzhybeyskyi courts and worked in the Prymorskyi court, then we wouldn't be able to consider the case in the Odesa region at all. If I had worked as an assistant to [Judge] Pereverzeva, I would have personally filed for her recusal, as we would have had a labor relationship with the specific composition of the court. But I worked here until the moment the judge began working at the Prymorskyi District Court. Therefore, Your Honor, I ask to fully deny this as an irrelevant motion aimed solely at delaying the trial," Granin, the lawyer for the victim side, responded to the motion.
Another lawyer for the victim side also emphasized that the defense provided no evidence of a direct link between Granin's previous work at the court and the current composition of the court.
"I object to the granting of the motion; I consider it absolutely unfounded, as no evidence was provided of a direct interconnection of lawyer Granin's cooperation with Judge Pereverzeva. I believe no reasonable grounds were provided for transferring the case to another court. I view the behavior itself and this motion, in my personal opinion, as a delay of the court proceedings. I ask the court to deny this motion," the victim's lawyer stated.
The prosecutor in the case expressed a similar position. Despite this, after returning from the deliberation room, the court granted the motion of Rusakov's defense and sent a submission to the Odesa Court of Appeal to resolve the issue of transferring the criminal proceedings to another court.
Thus, instead of moving to the examination of evidence and hearing the oncology specialist, the trial again focused on a procedural issue. In this way, Rusakov's lawyers have once again postponed the moment when the court will begin to evaluate the medical component of the case, specifically the actions of the accused doctors in terms of treatment protocols and proper performance of professional duties.
As a reminder
This is not the first time that procedural actions have arisen in the case of Adnan Kivan's death that could affect the timeline for considering the case. Previously, Vitaliy Rusakov's defense had already filed for the recusal of the presiding judge Larysa Pereverzeva, which effectively put the case on pause. Furthermore, preparatory hearings in the proceedings had previously been postponed due to the non-appearance of the defense side.
The legal community considers such motions to be a classic tool for stalling the judicial process.