The Odrex doctors case: why the court has not yet heard the opinion of a medical expert
Kyiv • UNN
In the case of Odrex doctors Vitalii Rusakov and Maryna Bielotserkovska, who are being tried for improper performance of professional duties by a medical worker, the court cannot proceed to hear the medical expert due to a series of procedural delays.
On June 25, the Kyiv District Court of Odesa is set to continue the trial of Odrex clinic doctors Vitalii Rusakov and Maryna Bielotserkovska, who are accused of improper performance of professional duties by a medical worker (Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Despite more than six months of hearings, the court proceedings have still not approached the key stage – hearing medical experts, whose conclusions may provide answers to the question of how and why businessman Adnan Kivan died, writes UNN.
Medical criminal proceedings are traditionally considered one of the most complex categories of cases for judicial review. Unlike most trials, here the court must evaluate not only legal circumstances but also complex clinical processes, medical standards, the correctness of diagnosis, treatment tactics, and patient management.
That is why the central place in such cases is occupied by the conclusions of forensic medical examinations and the testimony of specialized medical experts.
"Judges are specialists in the field of law but do not possess special medical knowledge. They cannot independently assess whether a medical procedure was performed correctly or whether the dosage of a drug was chosen correctly. The expert's conclusion is an independent source of evidence. In simple terms, the expert opinion translates complex biological and clinical processes into the language of legal facts," explained the acting head of the Department of Forensic Medicine and Medical Law of the Bogomolets National Medical University, Professor Andrii Biliakov.
According to him, it is the expert who evaluates the entire chain of medical care: from diagnosis to the maintenance of medical documentation.
"The expert commission thoroughly evaluates the diagnostic stage, the treatment-tactical stage, the technical stage, the organizational stage, and defects in maintaining medical documentation, since it is the main object of study," Biliakov noted.
That is why in the case of Adnan Kivan's death, the future interrogation of the medical expert is of key importance. It is he who can answer the question of whether the doctors' actions complied with the standards of medical care, whether treatment defects were allowed, and whether there is a causal link between the actions of the medical staff and the patient's death.
However, despite the public resonance of the case, the court has still not approached the stage of interrogating medical experts. Notably, back in early May 2026, an independent medical expert had already arrived at the Primorsky District Court of Odesa and introduced himself to the participants in the proceedings. However, at that very moment, the lawyers of one of the accused Odrex doctors filed a motion to change the jurisdiction of the case.
As a result, the case was transferred from Judge Larysa Pereverzova to Judge Viktor Chaplytskyi. After the transfer to another court, the process essentially returned to previous stages, and the issue of interrogating experts was again postponed indefinitely.
Already tomorrow, June 25, the judge must resolve the issue of scheduling the indictments for trial on the merits and determine the order of examining evidence and interrogating witnesses.
The main intrigue of the upcoming hearing is whether the court will this time be able to move to the next stage of the case review. After all, the previous attempt to do so ended with another postponement of the hearing.
Thus, on June 18, the preparatory hearing was postponed due to a statement from the defense counsel of the accused Maryna Bielotserkovska about being on sick leave.
"Again we received a statement about postponing the court hearing from Bielotserkovska's defense counsel, again citing that she is on sick leave. The court offered to connect via video conference, however, the person did not want to," reported presiding judge Viktor Chaplytskyi.
According to the judge, the sick leave of lawyer Yuliia Duz ends on June 23.
"Accused, if your defense counsel does not wish to participate in the court hearing directly in the court premises, she has the opportunity to connect, and the sick leave will already be closed; on June 25, she has the opportunity to connect via video conference for the court hearing. We have already been postponing for a month, and the defense counsel cannot connect with us via video conference," Chaplytskyi emphasized.
Formally, each such postponement may have a procedural justification. However, collectively, such actions lead to one result – the court does not proceed to the examination of evidence on the merits.
It is this stage that is potentially the most dangerous for the defense. After all, unlike emotional statements, public comments, or procedural disputes, experts analyze exclusively medical documentation, clinical protocols, and the actual actions of doctors. It is then that society and the court can hear a professional assessment of what happened to the patient at each stage of treatment.
Therefore, each new postponement essentially delays the moment when the most important evidence in the case appears in open court proceedings.
This situation looks particularly acute given that, to conduct forensic medical examinations, the family of Adnan Kivan made an extremely difficult decision – they agreed to the exhumation of the body. This step was necessary precisely so that experts could establish the objective circumstances of death and provide answers to the question of how and why the businessman died.
In fact, the family has already paid the highest price for the sake of establishing the truth. The only thing they seek today is to hear the experts' answers and have the opportunity to learn the truth about the last days of Adnan Kivan's life.