The Military Medical Commission Ignored Illnesses and Declared Fit for Service: Was the Conclusion Successfully Challenged in Court

The mere fact that a conscript disagrees with the Military Medical Commission's conclusion regarding fitness for military service is not grounds for its cancellation. The court may verify the legality of the medical examination procedure and the adoption of the commission's decision, but it is not authorized to assess the correctness of the established diagnosis or the application of the Schedule of Diseases. This conclusion was reached by the Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal.

The plaintiff requested the cancellation of the decision of the off-staff permanent military medical commission, which in August 2025 recognized him as fit for military service, and also demanded that the commission conduct a repeated medical examination. He argued that during the Military Medical Commission examination, his illnesses were not taken into account and he was not given the opportunity to submit medical documents that could have influenced the commission's conclusion. The court of first instance denied the claim, and the appellate court agreed with this decision.

Case Circumstances

As established by the court, in August 2025 the plaintiff underwent a medical examination at the off-staff permanent military medical commission based at the Chernivtsi Regional Clinical Hospital. Based on the examination results, he was declared fit for military service, as documented by the Military Medical Commission certificate. The commission's conclusion was made based on Articles 40-v and 13-v of column III of the Schedule of Diseases.

Disagreeing with this decision, the man appealed to the court. He indicated that the medical examination was conducted with violations, as the commission did not consider his existing illnesses and did not provide an opportunity to submit documents confirming his health condition.

What the Appellate Court Established

The panel of judges noted that the case materials confirm that the medical examination was conducted in accordance with the established procedure. The examination card contained information about the examination by a therapist, surgeon, neurologist, ophthalmologist, otorhinolaryngologist, and psychiatrist — doctors whose examinations are mandatory according to the Regulations on Military Medical Expertise.

Additionally, the court noted that in the medical examination card, the plaintiff personally confirmed by signature that he provided complete information about his health status and acknowledged that he was warned about liability for submitting incomplete or false information.

The Court Reviews the Procedure, Not the Medical Conclusion on the Merits

The key conclusion of the ruling was the delineation of powers between the court and the military medical commission.

The appellate court emphasized that when considering disputes regarding appeals against Military Medical Commission decisions, the court only verifies the legality of the medical examination procedure and the adoption of the commission's decision. At the same time, it is not authorized to assess the correctness of the established diagnosis, determine whether an illness falls under a specific article of the Schedule of Diseases, or substitute medical specialists. Such matters fall within the discretionary powers of military medical commissions.

Moreover, the court referred to the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, according to which the evaluation of the professional actions of Military Medical Commission doctors, the correctness of the established diagnosis, and the application of the Schedule of Diseases articles are beyond judicial control.

Regarding the Possibility of Reviewing the Military Medical Commission's Conclusion

The appellate court also noted that in case of disagreement with the conclusion regarding the degree of fitness, a person has the right to apply to a higher-level military medical commission to review the decision. However, in this case, the plaintiff did not provide evidence that he exercised this right. The court separately noted in case 600/5059/25-a that even an objective impossibility to timely appeal to a higher-level Military Medical Commission may be grounds for restoring the deadline for such an appeal, but by itself is not grounds for canceling the Military Medical Commission's conclusion in court.

Since no violations of the legislation requirements regarding the procedure for conducting the medical examination and documenting its results were found, there were no grounds to satisfy the claim. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Chernivtsi District Administrative Court remained unchanged. The ruling came into legal force on the day 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, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.