Not all military servicemen whose illness is related to the defense of the Motherland can receive UAH 100 thousand

The conclusion of the military medical commission that a serviceman's illness is related to the defense of the Fatherland by itself is not a basis for paying an additional reward of up to UAH 100 thousand for the period of inpatient treatment. Such payment is provided by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 168 (as amended) only in case of treatment after a wound, concussion, injury, or disability related to the defense of the Fatherland.

The Second Administrative Court of Appeal reached this conclusion.

Case circumstances

A former serviceman filed a lawsuit demanding to recognize the inaction of the military unit as unlawful, which after his dismissal did not calculate or pay him an additional reward of up to UAH 100 thousand for the period of inpatient treatment from October 17 to December 16, 2022. He also requested to recover his average earnings for the delay in the final settlement upon dismissal.

The plaintiff served in the military from May 2022 to March 2023, directly participated in measures to ensure the defense of Ukraine, and during service underwent prolonged inpatient treatment, including hip joint endoprosthesis surgery. During this period, he was paid monetary allowance and an additional reward of UAH 30 thousand according to Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 168. At the same time, he believed he was entitled to an increased reward—up to UAH 100 thousand.

The serviceman justified his claims by stating that the military medical commission established a causal link between his illness and the defense of the Fatherland. In his opinion, such a conclusion by the MMC is sufficient grounds for receiving the increased reward. Additionally, he claimed that a pre-existing illness worsened during the performance of combat tasks, which ultimately led to the need for hip joint endoprosthesis.

This case has already gone through all judicial instances. Initially, the Kharkiv District Administrative Court denied the claim, and the Second Administrative Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the decisions of the previous instances, and sent the case for a new trial. After the retrial, the court of first instance again denied the claim, which became the subject of a new appeal review.

Court: illness and wounds are different legal categories

The appellate court noted that the legislation distinguishes between the concepts of "illness" and "wound (concussion, injury, disability)" and establishes different legal consequences for them.

The court emphasized that Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 168 (as amended) provides for an additional reward of up to UAH 100 thousand, in particular to servicemen who during inpatient treatment are treated for wounds, concussions, injuries, or disabilities related to the defense of the Fatherland.

The panel of judges pointed out that in this case the MMC established the wording "Illness, YES, related to the defense of the Motherand," not "Wound (concussion, injury, disability), YES, related to the defense of the Fatherland." Therefore, the court concluded that the plaintiff's treatment was related to an illness, not a wound, concussion, injury, or disability as referred to in Resolution No. 168.

The court also noted that the case materials lack a certificate about the circumstances of a wound, injury, concussion, or disability in the form defined by Appendix 5 to the Regulation on Military Medical Expertise in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Such a certificate, according to regulatory requirements, is the basis for issuing an order to pay an additional reward of up to UAH 100 thousand.

Why the appeal was dismissed

The appellate court agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance that the plaintiff indeed underwent inpatient treatment, and the MMC established a causal link between his illness and the defense of the Motherland. However, the court stressed that the causal link established by the MMC regarding the illness itself does not create the right to receive an additional reward of up to UAH 100 thousand, since Resolution No. 168 links such payment to treatment after a wound, concussion, injury, or disability.

Separately, the panel of judges noted that the plaintiff did not challenge the content of the medical certificate and the MMC conclusion. Therefore, in case No. 520/16421/23, the court only examined whether the circumstances already established by the MMC grant the right to the disputed payment. In the court's opinion, there are no such legal grounds in this case.

In view of this, the Second Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the Kharkiv District Administrative Court unchanged.

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