In a medical negligence case against doctors Vitaly Rusakov and Marina Belotserkoskaya from private clinic Odrex, accused of improper performance of professional duties that could have led to the death of businessman Adnan Kivan, the defense has again filed a recusal motion against presiding judge Viktor Chaplitsky, UNN reports.
The court considered the motion and rejected it. The hearing could not continue that day—Rusakov himself failed to appear, so the court did not proceed to examining evidence. The next hearing is scheduled for September 21.
Not the first recusal
Rusakov's defense has repeatedly attempted to change the course of judicial proceedings through procedural mechanisms. Several hearings ago, the lawyers also filed a recusal motion against the same judge and requested a change of jurisdiction. In total, over a dozen hearings since the start of the process have been postponed due to motions from the defense side.
The court reacted to the systematic postponements. After the defendants' lawyers on September 10 and 11 again requested adjournment of hearings due to involvement in other cases, the judge found their reasons for non-appearance unjustified and reported this to the Qualifications and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar.
If lawyers' actions systematically lead to prolonging the process, the judge cannot simply record successive postponements—he must respond to them, since he himself is responsible for ensuring the case is heard within reasonable time limits.
This is how Oleksandr Sitnykov, retired judge of the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine, explained it to UNN.
A telling coincidence in timing
The latest postponement of the hearing of an independent medical expert makes the procedural maneuvers particularly striking. In May, when the expert had already arrived at court, the defense initiated a change of jurisdiction. Now, as the case approaches the second time the hearing of key medical evidence, the lawyers are inundating the judge with motions.
The statute of limitations clock
Against this backdrop, the question of limitation periods becomes increasingly acute: in the case of medical negligence by Odrex doctors, they expire in autumn 2027. If by that time the court has not rendered a final decision, the doctors may avoid criminal liability even if evidence shows their guilt. Each new motion reduces the time remaining to complete substantive review of the case.
The question is straightforward: will the court manage to hear the medical expert and render a decision by autumn 2027, or will the defense's procedural activity effectively become a way to avoid conviction through the running of the statute of limitations.
