The Supreme Court Defined the Grounds for Issuing a Certificate of Injury, Wound, or Concussion to a Serviceman

The Supreme Court, sitting as the Administrative Cassation Court, considered case No. 380/16138/24 concerning the legality of a military unit's refusal to prepare and issue a certificate about the circumstances of an injury (wound, concussion, disability) following an investigation of a serviceman's illness during service. The dispute also involved a demand for an additional official investigation into the causes of the illness, which the serviceman believed was related to military service.

Case Facts

The plaintiff served as a senior officer in the planning and coordination department of the air defense center of the military unit's headquarters. In January 2023, while performing combat tasks in Kramatorsk, Donetsk region, he suddenly fell ill and was hospitalized with a diagnosis of "ischemic stroke in the territory of the left middle cerebral artery." After prolonged treatment and rehabilitation, the military medical commission established a causal link between the illness and the defense of the Fatherland and declared him unfit for military service with removal from the military register.

Afterwards, the serviceman repeatedly appealed to the command demanding an official investigation and issuance of a certificate about the circumstances of the injury, which he considered necessary to establish the causal link between the illness and military service and to exercise relevant social guarantees.

By a court decision in another case, the military unit was obliged to conduct an official investigation in accordance with the Instruction on Investigation and Registration of Accidents Involving Servicemen, Occupational Diseases, and Accidents in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, approved by the Ministry of Defense Order No. 332.

In compliance with this decision, the military unit conducted an investigation and prepared reports in forms NV-2 and NV-3. The commission found that the acute cerebrovascular accident in the form of ischemic stroke was a consequence of a chronic illness—arterial hypertension, which the serviceman had suffered from since 2021. It was also noted that stroke is not included in the List of Occupational Diseases approved by the Cabinet of Ministers and therefore is not an acute occupational disease.

Disagreeing with these conclusions, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit demanding the military unit conduct an additional official investigation, recognize the inaction regarding the failure to issue the certificate about the circumstances of the injury as unlawful, and oblige the unit to issue such a certificate based on the investigation results.

Decisions of the Courts of First and Appeal Instances

The Lviv District Administrative Court denied the claim. The court reasoned that the official investigation acts remain valid, which established the absence of an occupational disease and determined that the stroke was a consequence of a chronic illness, not professional exposure or an accident.

The court noted that the results of the official investigation and the corresponding acts were not challenged by the plaintiff either administratively or judicially. Under these circumstances, there are no grounds for conducting a repeated or additional investigation.

The court also concluded that the certificate about the circumstances of the injury is issued in cases where a serviceman sustains an injury, wound, concussion, or disability, whereas the circumstances established during the investigation do not confirm the presence of such health damage.

The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance and left the decision unchanged.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted that the dispute concerns the legality of not issuing a certificate about the circumstances of an injury (wound, concussion, disability) based on the results of the investigation of the serviceman's illness.

The Court analyzed the provisions of Instruction No. 332 and pointed out that following the investigation, the commission prepares reports in forms NV-2 and NV-3, and after their approval, the commander of the military unit issues the corresponding order. It is based on this order that the certificate about the circumstances of the injury is prepared in the form provided by Appendix 5 to the Regulation on Military Medical Expertise.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the preparation of the certificate about the circumstances of the injury is derivative of establishing the fact of an accident that resulted in the serviceman sustaining an injury, wound, concussion, or disability. Such a certificate is intended to document the circumstances of bodily harm caused by an accident.

The Court formulated a legal conclusion that the certificate about the circumstances of the injury is prepared if the investigation establishes the fact of an accident that caused health damage to the serviceman due to external factors.

At the same time, if the investigation finds that the deterioration of health is not the result of an accident and not caused by external factors but is related to the course or complication of an existing illness, there are no legal grounds for preparing such a certificate.

The Supreme Court noted that in this case, the investigation acts contain the conclusion that the stroke was a consequence of arterial hypertension, not an injury or other external influence. Moreover, the plaintiff did not challenge the commission's conclusions regarding the causes and circumstances of the event, so they are valid and must be considered in resolving the dispute.

The Court also rejected arguments about the need for an additional investigation. The Supreme Court stated that paragraph 25 of Instruction No. 332 allows additional investigation only if violations are found during the control of the already conducted investigation. No such violations were found in this case.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's reference to the absence of the diagnosis "stage two dyscirculatory encephalopathy" in the investigation acts essentially indicates disagreement with the investigation results and aims to review them outside the prescribed procedure. Such arguments cannot be an independent basis for ordering an additional investigation.

In summary, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts about the absence of grounds both for preparing the certificate about the circumstances of the injury (wound, concussion, disability) and for conducting an additional investigation, and dismissed the cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the courts of first and appeal instances unchanged.

The ruling takes legal effect from the date of its adoption and is not subject to appeal.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.