Is it possible to challenge the decision of the Military Medical Commission in court if the conscript was not examined by a neurologist and psychiatrist?

The Odesa District Administrative Court denied the claim of a conscript who challenged the Military Medical Commission's decision recognizing him fit for military service. The plaintiff argued that the commission did not consider his medical documents, was not examined by neurologists and psychiatrists, and did not conduct necessary tests. However, the court concluded that in such disputes it only reviews the legality of the procedure of the Military Medical Commission's decision-making, not the correctness of the diagnosis or medical conclusions. Furthermore, the court noted that the plaintiff did not use the review mechanism provided by the Regulations on Military Medical Expertise to appeal the decision to the regional Military Medical Commission or the Central Military Medical Commission.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit demanding the cancellation of the Military Medical Commission's decision dated May 3, 2024, which recognized him fit for military service. He also requested the commission to send him for inpatient examination to the neurological and psychiatric departments, conduct a repeated medical examination, and issue a new decision recognizing him fit only for service in military support units of the Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support, higher military educational institutions, training centers, medical units, logistics, communications, operational support, and security units according to Article 22 of the Schedule of Diseases.

According to the plaintiff, during the Military Medical Commission examination, the commission did not take into account previously established diagnoses, recommendations of doctors from other medical institutions, medical documentation, and medical history. He stated that he was not examined by neurologists and psychiatrists, nor was an electroencephalogram performed, although such a test was recommended by doctors who had previously examined him. In his opinion, the commission's decision did not reflect his actual health condition, and further military service negatively affected his health.

The court established that on May 3, 2024, the plaintiff underwent a medical examination by the Military Medical Commission, which recognized him fit for military service under Article 22 "B" of column II of the Schedule of Diseases. The next day, he was conscripted for military service under mobilization and sent to a military unit. These facts were confirmed by his military ID and official letters from relevant authorities.

Court's observations

The court analyzed the provisions of the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service" and the Regulations on Military Medical Expertise in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, approved by the Ministry of Defense Order No. 402.

The court referred to the legal positions of the Supreme Court, according to which an administrative court does not have specialized medical knowledge and therefore is not entitled to verify the correctness of the diagnosis, the conformity of the disease to a specific article of the Schedule of Diseases, or to assess the professional actions of the doctors who are members of the Military Medical Commission. Such matters fall within the competence of the Military Medical Commissions.

The court emphasized that when considering disputes regarding Military Medical Commission decisions, it can only verify the legality of the commission's conclusion within the framework of compliance with the procedure of its adoption. The assessment of the diagnosis, determination of the degree of impairment of bodily functions, and establishment of fitness or unfitness for military service are discretionary powers of the Military Medical Commissions. The court is not entitled to substitute itself for this body and conduct its own medical evaluation.

Separately, the court noted that Regulation No. 402 provides a mechanism for reviewing Military Medical Commission decisions. If a person disagrees with the commission's decision regarding fitness for military service, they have the right to apply to the regional Military Medical Commission or the Central Military Medical Commission for review of such a conclusion. However, the case materials 420/21277/24 showed that the plaintiff did not exercise this right and did not initiate a review of the Military Medical Commission's decision in the prescribed manner.

Additionally, the court noted that the claim did not contain specific arguments about violations of the procedure for conducting military medical expertise. In fact, the plaintiff expressed disagreement specifically with the assessment of his health condition and the conclusion about fitness for military service. At the same time, the court did not find any procedural violations in the medical examination that could be grounds for canceling the Military Medical Commission's decision.

Court decision

The Odesa District Administrative Court denied all claims. The court concluded that there were no grounds to cancel the Military Medical Commission's decision recognizing the plaintiff fit for military service, as no procedural violations were established. The court did not assess the correctness of the Military Medical Commission's medical conclusions on the merits but only checked whether there were legal grounds for canceling the decision considering compliance with the established procedure. Consequently, the court also denied derivative claims regarding referral for inpatient examination, repeated medical examination, and adoption of a new decision on the degree of fitness for military service.

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