Are 100,000 UAH paid to military personnel treating mental disorders after combat injury — court's position

A serviceman who repeatedly underwent inpatient treatment for mental disorders after a combat injury won a court case to receive additional compensation under Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 168. The military unit refused, believing that the treatment was no longer due to the injury itself but due to an illness. However, the appellate court agreed with the first instance court's conclusion: if the illness is a proven consequence of the combat injury, and this causal link is confirmed by the Military Medical Commission (MMC), the serviceman has the right to the corresponding payment.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff served in a border guard unit. In April 2023, during combat missions in the Donetsk region, he sustained a mine-explosive injury and multiple shrapnel wounds as a result of enemy mortar shelling. The fact of injury during the defense of the homeland was confirmed by a certificate of injury circumstances, an accident report, primary medical documentation, and conclusions of the military medical commission.

After initial treatment, the serviceman developed consequences of the combat injury, including organic asthenic disorder and later mixed anxiety and depressive disorder with insomnia. From November 2023 to February 2025, he repeatedly underwent inpatient treatment in medical institutions, including psychiatric ones. During these periods, the serviceman requested payment of additional compensation of 100,000 UAH proportionally to the days of treatment according to Cabinet Resolution No. 168.

The military unit refused payment, believing that medical documents did not confirm treatment specifically related to the injury connected with the defense of the homeland. In their view, the plaintiff was treated for an illness, not the combat injury itself. Additionally, the defendant argued that some documents were not submitted along with the payment request report.

Court conclusions

The court of first instance satisfied the claim, and the appellate court agreed with this decision.

The panel of judges noted that according to Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 168, the right to additional compensation belongs to servicemen who are undergoing inpatient treatment due to injury, concussion, trauma, or disability related to the defense of the homeland. At the same time, the appellate court disagreed with the military unit's interpretation that the right to such payment arises only during treatment of the injury itself, not its consequences.

The court pointed out that the MMC established a causal link between the combat injury and the plaintiff's subsequent mental disorders. The case materials confirm that the organic asthenic disorder and mixed anxiety and depressive disorder developed precisely as a consequence of the combat injury. The panel of judges also separately noted in case 140/3906/25 that the consequence of the injury is part of the injury itself, not a separate, independent illness.

The appellate court also emphasized that the wording of Cabinet Resolution No. 168 — "in connection with injury (concussion, trauma, disability) related to the defense of the homeland" — in this case covers not only treatment of the injury directly but also treatment of its consequences if there is a confirmed causal link by the MMC. According to the panel, a different interpretation would deprive servicemen of additional compensation in cases where the primary injury no longer requires prolonged treatment, but its consequences cause repeated hospitalizations.

The court also rejected the military unit's argument about the absence of certain documents when submitting the payment request. The panel noted that in response to the application, the military unit did not inform the plaintiff about the need to submit additional documents nor offered to correct the deficiencies, but immediately refused payment.

Furthermore, the appellate court noted that the requirement to establish the severity of the injury according to the MMC's conclusion applies to additional compensation for the period of leave for treatment after a severe injury. Meanwhile, for payment for the period of inpatient treatment, the decisive factor is confirmation that the treatment was conducted in connection with an injury related to the defense of the homeland.

Final decision

The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the military unit's appeal and left unchanged the decision of the Volyn District Administrative Court. The court agreed with the first instance court's conclusion that the military unit unjustifiably did not calculate and pay the plaintiff additional compensation provided by Cabinet Resolution No. 168 proportionally to the days of his inpatient treatment during the disputed periods.

When issuing the ruling, the appellate court also took into account the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court set out in rulings dated April 11, 2024, in case No. 340/5387/22 and March 19, 2026, in case No. 600/367/24.

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.