Criminal liability of a doctor under Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is possible only after a detailed examination of evidence, medical documentation, and conclusions of forensic medical examinations. The court must establish whether there was a causal link between the actions of medical professionals and the patient's death. However, in the resonant case of doctors from the private clinic Odrex, this process seems to be deliberately delayed.
The Kyiv District Court of Odesa was unable to continue proceedings in the criminal case against doctors from the private clinic Odrex Vitaliy Rusakov and Marina Belotserkavska, who are accused of improper performance of professional duties by medical workers (Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
According to the investigation, after surgery on patient Adnan Kivan, the doctors may have failed to prescribe necessary antibiotic therapy and improperly responded to post-operative complications. According to the conclusions of a forensic medical examination, this could have led to the development of sepsis and the patient's death. The accused doctors deny their guilt.
However, over more than eight months of proceedings, the court has been unable to proceed to verify these circumstances. The reason is more than a dozen motions from the defense team, which are filed at nearly every hearing.
What the court must prove before speaking of guilt
As noted by lawyer Oleksandr Marchenko, establishing a doctor's guilt requires more than just the fact of the patient's death. The court must investigate:
- the existence of a legally defined professional duty to act in a certain manner;
- actual violation of this duty — through action or inaction;
- serious consequences for the patient — health disorder or death;
- a causal link between the violation and the consequence;
- the subjective aspect in the form of negligence — criminal recklessness or criminal negligence.
If at least one of these elements is not proven, the composition of a crime is absent. That is, without examination of medical documentation, clinical protocols, expert conclusions, and other evidence, the court cannot make a lawful and substantiated decision — neither convicting nor acquitting.
Marchenko notes that the practice of the Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court has already formed a clear approach to assessing such cases.
"Analysis of the practice of the Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court shows a stable tendency to evaluate a doctor's conduct through the prism of how a careful, qualified specialist of similar specialization would act under the same conditions of time, resources, and information — essentially, the standard of a reasonable and conscientious doctor," the lawyer states.
As an example, the lawyer cites a Supreme Court ruling from March 18, 2026 in case No. 237/2797/16. In it, a doctor was found guilty under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine after it was established that he did not respond appropriately to the patient's complaints, did not prescribe necessary examinations, and did not involve a specialist, despite the requirements of the clinical protocol. The Supreme Court emphasized: what is decisive is not the mere fact of serious consequences, but whether a careful and qualified specialist under specific circumstances should have recognized clinical signs and acted in accordance with professional standards.
Who benefits from the delay
The defense team's tactics, seemingly focused on delaying rather than promptly investigating evidence, raises a simple question: if the accused are confident that they acted in accordance with medical standards, why not accelerate the verification of exactly these facts?
Instead, each new postponement works toward another procedural outcome. The longer the court does not proceed to examine evidence, the closer it comes to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution. In such a case, the criminal case may be closed without a verdict being rendered — even if the evidence points to the guilt of the accused.
How the accused doctor criticizes the judge
Meanwhile, accused surgeon Vitaliy Rusakov continues to publicly criticize the court and the presiding judge Viktor Chaplytsky. The surgeon claims that the court's refusal to return the indictment to the prosecutor allegedly testifies to "special favoritism" toward the prosecution side.
In fact, the accused surgeon argues: if the court does not grant procedural motions from the defense team, this is supposedly a sign of its bias. During hearings, Rusakov's lawyers expressed a similar position: "We are not saying the court is unfavorable to us. We are saying that the court is excessively favorable to the prosecution."
If the next defense motions again delay the transition to examining evidence, the case risks running into not a verdict but the expiration of the statute of limitations — and then the question of the guilt or innocence of the Odrex doctors will remain without an answer from the court.
