The same scenario for all courts: the case regarding the death of an Odrex patient stalled at a key medical stage

The forensic medical examination in the case of the death of Svitlana Huk's husband after surgery at the Odesa clinic Odrex has failed once again. The Lviv Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination returned the materials without a conclusion, citing the Russian language of the medical records kept by the clinic, as well as the absence of an approved list of paid services. Lawyers warn that in cases of medical negligence, delays in proceedings due to the lack of forensic conclusions can lead to the expiration of statutes of limitations and the avoidance of responsibility, reports UNN. 

This story began back in 2019. At that time, Svitlana Huk's husband, after complex treatment for an oncological disease in Israel, turned to the Odesa clinic Odrex. According to the widow's words, the clinic's doctors assured the family that a simple operation was needed, which would guarantee a chance for recovery.  

However, after the operation, for which the family claims to have paid about 42.5 thousand dollars, the husband's condition deteriorated sharply. A few days later, he died in the clinic's intensive care unit. Later, the widow stated there were problems with medical documentation from Odrex, financial pressure from the clinic, and a struggle to conduct a full forensic medical examination to finally get an answer to the question of whether the clinic was at fault for her husband's death. 

The first problems with conducting the forensic medical examination in the Huk case arose after the study was ordered in Kyiv. At that time, the materials were returned twice without a conclusion, citing the absence of a pathological-anatomical autopsy and the impossibility of reliably establishing the cause of death.

After this, it was possible to secure the appointment of a new examination in Lviv. It was on this examination that Svitlana Huk placed her greatest hopes, as, according to her, the criminal proceedings had effectively not moved for years.

However, the Lviv examination also ultimately ended with the return of materials without a conclusion. As became known from documents provided to the editorial office by Svitlana Huk, the response from the State Specialized Institution "Lviv Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination" stated that it was impossible to conduct the study within the timeframe set by the court "due to the absence of an approved list of paid services." Separately, the bureau's response noted that "in the inpatient medical record, the entries are made in the Russian language, which prevents its objective study." This refers specifically to the medical documentation maintained by the Odrex clinic during the patient's treatment.

Everything that is happening, I regard as objective facts of violation of my rights and, probably, all existing procedural codes combined. One way or another, sooner or later, the examination will be conducted. It is only a matter of time

According to the victim, after the refusal of the Lviv Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination, a new court hearing is to take place, where the issue of translating the medical documentation maintained by the Odrex clinic into Ukrainian will be raised. After that, the materials are planned to be re-sent for forensic medical examination. This will be the fourth attempt to obtain conclusions from the competent authorities.

Why the examination is a key piece of evidence

Acting Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine and Medical Law at the Bogomolets National Medical University, Professor Andriy Bilyakov, in a comment to UNN explained that it is the forensic medical examination that serves as the foundation for assessing doctors' actions in cases of medical negligence.

Judges are experts in the field of law but do not possess specialized medical knowledge. They cannot independently assess whether a medical procedure was performed correctly or if the treatment was chosen properly. It is the expert conclusion that effectively translates complex medical processes into the language of legal facts

According to him, the examination assesses not only the cause of the patient's death but also the correctness of the diagnosis, the expediency of the operation, compliance with clinical protocols, the validity of the treatment tactics, and the maintenance of medical documentation.

Without a forensic medical examination, the court is legally unable to establish the presence or absence of a criminal offense in the actions of a medic

That is why the absence of an expert conclusion in such cases effectively blocks the progress of the case on its merits.

Could the delay be an Odrex tactic?

Repeated refusals by various expert institutions to conduct the study may create the impression of an artificial delay in the process – especially considering that the case has been ongoing for over six years.

In similar cases, the longer the receipt of an expert conclusion is delayed, the closer the case comes to the risk of the statute of limitations expiring. This means that even if violations are present, the guilty parties may avoid real responsibility.  

The ultimate goal of such a tactic may not just be postponing hearings, but bringing the case to the expiration of the statute of limitations so that the person avoids real criminal liability

According to him, in cases of medical negligence, an additional consequence of a verdict could be the deprivation of the right to engage in medical activities. However, if the proceedings are closed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, such a restriction may not occur.

Recall

Svitlana Huk's story is not the only case where a key medical stage becomes an obstacle to the finale in cases involving Odrex doctors. A similar scenario is currently unfolding in the case regarding the death of businessman Adnan Kivan during treatment at Odrex. There, the court was already supposed to move to the examination of medical evidence and the interrogation of an independent expert oncologist, but at that exact moment, the defense of one of the accused doctors secured the transfer of the proceedings to another court. As a result, the process is effectively starting over.

And the more such stories appear, the stronger the feeling that in cases involving the clinic and its medics, the same scenario has been repeating for years: endless examinations, postponements, procedural maneuvers, and the constant delay of the moment when the court must finally move to the main point – the assessment of medical evidence on its merits.