A serviceman argued that cirrhosis of the liver developed during service — what the court decided in the dispute with the Military Medical Commission

A serviceman who was discharged from service due to health reasons because of cirrhosis of the liver tried to challenge in court the conclusion of the military medical commission that his illness was not related to military service. He argued that before service he was declared fit, and his health deteriorated during service.

The Third Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed his complaint. The court emphasized that establishing a causal link between the illness and military service falls within the competence of the Military Medical Commission, and the administrative court is not authorized to assess the correctness of the commission's medical conclusions or to establish diagnoses instead of it.

Circumstances of the case

In July 2025, the serviceman filed a lawsuit against the 20th Regional Military Medical Commission. He requested to recognize as unlawful and cancel the item in the medical certificate dated January 9, 2025, which stated that his illness "is not related to military service," and also to oblige the commission to review this conclusion.

Case materials show that the plaintiff was diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver associated with hepatitis C virus, with a number of complications, including portal hypertension, varicose veins of the esophagus and stomach, hepatocellular insufficiency, and secondary thrombocytopenia. The Military Medical Commission noted in the medical certificate that this illness is not related to military service.

Based on this conclusion, the serviceman was discharged for health reasons and removed from the personnel list of the military unit. Later, he was assigned a disability group III due to a general illness.

Plaintiff's position

The plaintiff considered the Military Medical Commission's conclusion to be erroneous. He referred to the fact that as of June 2024 he was recognized as fit for military service and that he underwent treatment multiple times during service.

In his opinion, the illness worsened precisely during military service, so the conclusion about the absence of a causal link between the illness and service is unfounded.

Why the courts denied the claim

The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court denied the claim. The appellate court agreed with this conclusion.

The panel of judges noted that according to the Regulation on Military Medical Expertise in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, establishing a causal link between diseases and military service is within the authority of military medical commissions.

The courts also took into account that the plaintiff did not provide certificates of direct participation in activities necessary to ensure the defense of Ukraine, protection of the population's security, and state interests in connection with the armed aggression of the Russian Federation. In the appellate complaint in case 160/19999/25, he explicitly stated that he did not participate in such activities.

Conclusions of the appellate court

The court specifically emphasized that according to Article 70 of the Law "Fundamentals of Ukrainian Legislation on Health Care," it is the military medical commissions that determine fitness for military service and establish a causal link between diseases, injuries, and military service.

The appellate court agreed with the first instance court's conclusion that verifying the correctness of the Military Medical Commission's decision solely based on medical indicators is not within the competence of the administrative court. Determining the presence or absence of a particular diagnosis, as well as establishing fitness or unfitness for military service based on medical examination results, are discretionary powers of the Military Medical Commission.

In view of this, the Third Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court unchanged. The ruling took legal effect on the day it was made and can be appealed to the Supreme Court in cassation procedure.

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