Patient’s death during rhinoplasty: court finds anesthesiologist guilty but exempts him from punishment due to the statute of limitations

It took the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa more than eight years to issue a verdict in the case concerning the death of a patient after plastic surgery at a private medical facility, which later changed its name to "Mozart Medical Center for Plastic Aesthetic Surgery and Cosmetology." The court established that the anesthesiologist had improperly performed his professional duties, used a contraindicated drug, and failed to provide the required level of medical care. At the same time, despite finding the doctor guilty, the court spared him criminal punishment because the statute of limitations had expired, UNN reports. 

The tragedy occurred on May 4, 2017, at the Odesa private medical center for plastic aesthetic surgery and cosmetology "Mozart." The patient arrived for scheduled nose-correction surgery—rhinoseptoplasty and submucosal vasotomy of the inferior nasal turbinates. At around 10 a.m., the woman was taken to the operating room. The anesthesiologist began administering anesthetic drugs, including the inhalational anesthetic sevoflurane.

The patient's condition soon deteriorated sharply. She developed malignant hyperthermia—a life-threatening reaction of the body to certain anesthetic drugs. Her body temperature rose rapidly, and cardiac arrhythmias developed.

The operation was stopped, and emergency care was initiated. She was later transported to another medical facility, but the woman could not be saved. At 1:35 p.m., doctors pronounced her dead.

As the court established, the immediate cause of death was acute heart failure associated with malignant hyperthermia. The court found that the tragedy could have been prevented. The patient had already experienced a dangerous reaction to anesthesia during one of her previous surgical procedures. The relevant information was contained in her medical records.

In addition, the patient's relatives and close acquaintances testified that they had warned the doctors before the operation about her previous problems with anesthesia. However, as the court established, the anesthesiologist did not take a complete medical history and failed to take into account information about the previous episode of malignant hyperthermia.

The court also established a number of violations during the provision of emergency care. In particular, the necessary monitoring of blood parameters was not carried out, the measures required by the clinical protocol were not fully implemented, and the decision to transport the patient to another medical facility before her condition had stabilized was deemed erroneous by the court.

The accused doctor did not admit his guilt. He claimed that he had taken the patient's medical history, but had not been informed of any contraindications. The anesthesiologist also explained that he had tried to determine whether dantrolene—the drug used to treat malignant hyperthermia—was available, but had been told that it was not.

Several forensic medical examinations were conducted during the proceedings. The experts' conclusions regarding the doctor's liability differed, but the court of first instance found the defense's arguments unconvincing and concluded that the anesthesiologist's guilt had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Guilty, but not punished: how the statute of limitations came into play

The criminal proceedings were initiated as early as May 4, 2017—the day the patient died. In 2019, the case was already being heard by the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa. It was only on September 22, 2025, that the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa issued a guilty verdict.

The doctor was found guilty under Part One of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine—improper performance by a medical worker of their professional duties, resulting in serious consequences for a patient.

At the same time, the court expressly stated that, given the nature of the offense and its consequences, the doctor should have been sentenced to imprisonment. However, this did not happen.

Under Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, a five-year statute of limitations applies to the relevant category of less serious offenses. By the time the verdict was issued, more than eight years had already passed since the patient's death.

As a result, the court applied the provisions of Part Five of Article 74 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and exempted the defendant from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. In other words, the court established the doctor’s guilt but did not impose any criminal punishment on him.

Moreover, the verdict does not provide for disqualification from practicing medicine either, although Part One of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides for this type of punishment for a period of up to five years.

Interestingly, according to a court ruling dated November 11, 2019, after the tragedy, the doctor was officially employed as an anesthesiologist at City Clinical Hospital No. 11. In the 2025 verdict, the court also stated that the defendant works as an anesthesiologist.  

Almost UAH 364,000 in compensation for the patient’s death

Separately, as part of the criminal proceedings, the court considered the civil claim filed by the injured party. The deceased’s relatives demanded compensation for expenses related to the patient’s death and the court proceedings. In particular, these included transportation, funeral, monument production, legal assistance, and interpreter services.

The court granted the claim in full and ordered the doctor to pay UAH 363,981.65 in property damage. In addition, the anesthesiologist must reimburse the state UAH 21,464.61 in costs for conducting the examinations.

However, it is important to distinguish between these decisions: compensation for property damage to the injured parties is not a criminal punishment and does not replace one.