Court Denied Service Member's Request for Injury Certificate Due to Military Unit's Investigation Conclusion

The Poltava District Administrative Court denied a service member's claim to compel the issuance of a certificate regarding the circumstances of an injury.

Case circumstances No. 440/1270/26

On May 1, 2026, the Poltava District Administrative Court considered an administrative lawsuit filed by a service member against a military unit seeking recognition of unlawful actions and an order to perform certain actions.

The plaintiff requested the court to recognize as unlawful the military unit's refusal to provide a certificate about the circumstances of an injury sustained on October 26, 2022, and to compel the military unit to issue such a certificate in the form prescribed by Appendix 5 to the Regulation on Military Medical Examination in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, approved by the order of the Minister of Defense of Ukraine dated August 14, 2008, No. 402.

To substantiate the claim, the plaintiff stated that on October 26, 2022, while performing combat tasks in the area of the settlement of Davydiv Brid, Kherson region, he sustained injuries to the thoracic spine and inflammation of the left knee joint as a result of enemy shelling. The plaintiff asserted that the circumstances of the injury are confirmed by available evidence, and the absence of the certificate violates his rights to social protection and establishing a causal link between the illness and the performance of military service duties.

The military unit, in its response to the claim, opposed satisfying the demands. According to the certificate of the garrison military medical commission dated January 18, 2023, No. 725, the plaintiff's illnesses (isolated osteochondrosis of the thoracic spine, deforming spondylosis, spondylogenic thoracalgia, chronic sensorineural hearing loss, and others) were recognized as related to military service but not related to the defense of the Homeland.

Based on the plaintiff's report, a service investigation was conducted, and the military unit's commission prepared an accident investigation report dated March 5, 2023. By order No. 102 of the military unit commander dated March 5, 2023, "On the results of the service investigation regarding the injury of the service member," it was established that the fact of injury related to the defense of the Homeland was not confirmed. In particular, extracts from the combat log and witness statements did not provide sufficient grounds to recognize the injury as combat-related.

Based on this conclusion, the military unit, by letter dated December 24, 2025, refused the plaintiff the issuance of a certificate about the circumstances of the injury in form No. 5.

Court decision

The Poltava District Administrative Court denied the administrative claim in full.

The court found that at the time of the case consideration, the service investigation report and the military unit commander's order dated March 5, 2023, were valid and had not been appealed by the plaintiff in the prescribed manner. The regulatory legal acts do not provide for the possibility of conducting a repeated service investigation in the absence of an appeal against the initial one.

The court noted that verification of the correctness of the military medical commission's decision regarding the causal link of the illness and the evaluation of medical diagnoses are not within the competence of the administrative court. The court is not entitled to substitute the military medical commission or review its discretionary powers regarding establishing the causal link of the injury.

The court referred to the legal position of the Supreme Court set out in rulings dated February 26, 2025, in cases No. 240/13173/22 and No. 600/3273/22-a, April 16, 2025, in case No. 160/31586/23, and February 10, 2022, in case No. 160/7153/20. According to this practice, the administrative court only reviews the legality and procedural compliance of decisions made by authorities but cannot interfere with the assessment of medical evidence or assume the powers of the Central Military Medical Commission.

The court concluded that the military unit's refusal to issue the certificate about the circumstances of the injury was lawful, as it was based on the results of the conducted service investigation and the military medical commission's decision. No unlawful actions or inaction by the defendant were established.

The decision becomes legally effective after the expiration of the appeal period by all parties to the case if no appeal is filed. If an appeal is filed, the decision, unless overturned, becomes effective after the appeal is returned, denied opening, closed, or after the appellate court issues a ruling following the appeal review.

The decision may be appealed to the Second Administrative Court of Appeal within thirty days from the date of the full court decision.

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.