Why did the doctor accused of medical negligence at Odrex start a blog and criticize the judge?

The court in the medical negligence case, which could have led to the death of businessman Adnan Kivan at the Odrex clinic, must establish the circumstances of the treatment and assess the actions of the medics. However, the first court hearings, during which the case is considered on its merits, increasingly resemble a public show with elements of pressure and black PR. Read about how this high-profile case is being heard and what the personal PR of the defendant doctor "on the bones" of his patient has to do with it in the UNN material.

The Primorsky District Court of Odesa continues to hear the criminal proceedings against doctors Vitaliy Rusakov and Maryna Bielotserkovska, 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 led to the death of patient businessman Adnan Kivan.

According to the investigation, after surgery at the Odrex clinic, the patient was not prescribed the necessary antibacterial therapy and complications were not properly responded to. As a result, sepsis developed, which, according to expert conclusions, could have caused death.

Two medics are involved in the case: Vitaliy Rusakov – a surgeon who directly participated in the patient's treatment and performed the surgical intervention, and Maryna Bielotserkovska – an oncologist who was also part of the team that treated Kivan during his stay at the clinic (almost immediately after the start of the criminal case, the Odrex clinic fired Bielotserkovska). Their actions and decisions regarding the treatment of patient Adnan Kivan are the subject of consideration in court. However, attention is drawn not only to the circumstances of the case but also to the behavior of one of the accused – surgeon Vitaliy Rusakov.

Court under pressure and accompanied by a "support group"

The first court hearings on the merits of the case, the scandalous doctor Rusakov, it seems, tried to turn into a show. In particular, in his social networks, the surgeon of the Odrex clinic actively urged fellow doctors to come to court and support him. One of the reasons why other doctors should publicly stand up for him is the thesis that if Rusakov is found guilty of medical negligence, it will allegedly create a situation where all doctors in Ukraine will be under threat of criminal prosecution due to patient deaths. This will allegedly inevitably lead to doctors refusing to treat "difficult" patients so as not to be held accountable in court in the event of their death. As a result of Rusakov's openly manipulative theses, a "support group" of the scandalous doctor with posters came to the courtroom for one of the hearings.

Formally, this is the exercise of the right to an open trial. In fact, it is the creation of additional psychological pressure on judges and participants in the process, which concerns a delicate medical topic and the death of a patient.

In parallel with creating a show, the doctor of the Odrex clinic also allows himself public criticism of the court, its decisions, and even personal accusations against the presiding judge Larysa Pereverzieva. In his social media posts, the doctor accompanies such statements with mocking images of the judge with provocative captions.

image from Vitaliy Rusakov's Facebook page

In particular, Rusakov criticizes the court's decision regarding the format of the case consideration, claiming that the process is allegedly "closed to society." However, as UNN previously explained, it is not about a closed court, but about a partially open hearing – with a restriction on broadcasting only during the announcement of personal data and medical information of the patient.

This approach is directly provided for by the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which oblige the court to protect medical secrecy and privacy. However, Rusakov describes this decision as an attempt to "hide the truth," which looks like a simplified interpretation of procedural norms and manipulation.

Delaying the trial

The same rhetoric about an allegedly "closed court" is also being used by the accused's lawyers. In particular, during the court hearing on April 3, Rusakov's lawyer filed a recusal of the presiding judge Larysa Pereverzieva, citing, among other things, the alleged restriction of the openness of the process.

The consideration of this application took place on April 6, another judge – Yuriy Kryvokhyzha – heard the positions of the parties, after which he refused to satisfy the motion for recusal. Thus, Judge Pereverzieva continues to hear the case.

In legal practice, such steps are often used as a tool to delay the process – because until the recusal of the judge is considered, the hearing of the case on its merits is suspended.

This is not the first time that the defense has resorted to actions that affect the timing of the consideration. Previously, hearings were postponed due to the non-appearance of Rusakov's lawyer.

As a result, instead of considering evidence and hearing the parties, the court is forced to spend time on procedural issues.

From doctor to blogger

In parallel with the delay of the trial, Rusakov seems to have taken up his own blogging career. As UNN previously wrote, he published a video on YouTube in which he told his own version of events. However, an analysis of these statements shows a number of contradictions. In particular, the doctor simultaneously claims that he "was not Adnan Kivan's attending physician," but admits his participation in the treatment. In addition, in the video, he voices details of the patient's condition, which is an actual violation of medical secrecy and disrespect for his deceased patient.

It seems that the high-profile case is being used by the Odrex doctor as a tool to increase recognition and audience. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain why the topic of a patient's death is presented in a video blog format.

Another reason to consider vlogs and, in general, Rusakov's public activity as hype "on the bones" of his deceased patient is how he ends his videos – with a call to subscribe to his YouTube channel. Such a call looks quite indicative: the defendant may be trying to turn the trial in a medical negligence case into a platform for self-promotion.