Fake Diagnoses for MSEC: The Supreme Court Released a Doctor from Liability Due to a Procedural Court Error
The Cassation Criminal Court, in case No. 464/5324/24, annulled the guilty verdict against a doctor convicted of official forgery of documents during the disability registration process and closed the criminal proceedings due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal liability.
Case Circumstances
According to the case materials, the accused worked as the head of the medical rehabilitation department at the central hospital and as a neurologist for the interdistrict medical-social expert commission (MSEC).
The investigation established that from 25 July to 4 August 2022, the accused, acting jointly with other unidentified persons, prepared an extract from a medical record in the name of a man who had not been hospitalised, had not undergone any medical examinations, and had not visited this healthcare facility.
The extract stated that the patient had allegedly spent almost ten days in inpatient treatment and had a number of severe neurological diseases. According to the prosecution, the doctor certified the document with stamps and handed it over for further disability registration through the MSEC.
Later, working as a neurologist for the interdistrict MSEC, the accused, without personally examining the patient, drew up and signed an examination report containing false information about the patient's health condition. Based on this document, the man was assigned the third disability group due to a general disease.
The Sykhiv District Court of Lviv found the doctor guilty of official forgery committed by a group of persons (Part 1 of Article 28, Part 1 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). He was sentenced to two years of restriction of liberty, banned for three years from holding positions related to organisational-administrative and administrative-economic functions in medical institutions of all forms of ownership, and ordered to pay UAH 24,136.98 for expert examinations.
The Lviv Court of Appeal upheld this verdict.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court noted that, in accordance with Article 285 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, a person suspected or accused of committing a criminal offence who may be released from criminal liability must be informed of this right. The suspect or accused must be apprised of the essence of the suspicion or accusation, the grounds for release from criminal liability, the right to object to the closure of criminal proceedings on this basis, and the consequences of such an objection. Should the person object to the release, the pre-trial investigation and trial will proceed in the usual manner.
The court also referred to the legal conclusion issued by the united chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court on 6 December 2021. This conclusion stipulates that courts of first and appellate instance are obliged to inform the accused of their right to be released from criminal liability and to have criminal proceedings closed, if the statute of limitations for criminal liability has expired at the time of the case's consideration. The accused must also be informed of their right to object to such a decision and the consequences of such an objection.
The Supreme Court emphasised that a failure by the courts of first or appellate instance to explain these circumstances, contrary to the requirements of Article 285 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, constitutes a violation of criminal procedural law. This indicates an incorrect application of Ukraine's law on criminal liability, specifically the non-application of a law that should have been applied.
The panel of judges established that, at the time of the Lviv Court of Appeal's consideration of the criminal proceedings on 20 October 2025, grounds already existed for releasing the accused from criminal liability under Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. However, the appellate court, in reaching its decision, did not apply this legal norm, thereby committing a significant violation of the requirements of criminal procedural law and incorrectly applying the law of Ukraine on criminal liability.
Concurrently, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the convicted person had expressed consent to the closure of criminal proceedings due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and, during the cassation review, reconfirmed that he did not object to release from criminal liability under Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Considering these established circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that the cassation appeal should be granted, and the verdict of the first instance court and the ruling of the appellate court should be annulled. The accused is to be released from criminal liability under Part 1 of Article 28 and Part 1 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the criminal proceedings are to be closed pursuant to paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court also amended the allocation of procedural costs. The court noted that, in cases where a person is released from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the costs of expert examinations are not recovered from that person but are borne by the state. Therefore, the court charged the amount of UAH 24,136.98 for expert involvement to the state.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.
