HIV, CNS Tuberculosis and Toxoplasmosis: Court Forced the Central Military Medical Commission to Review the Cause of Death of a Soldier
The Zhytomyr District Administrative Court considered an administrative lawsuit filed by the wife of a staff sergeant against the Central Military Medical Commission of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The lawsuit sought to have a decision establishing the causal link of diseases declared unlawful and cancelled, and to compel the commission to take further action. The court partially upheld the claim.
Soldier’s Wife Challenges Military Medical Commission’s Decision
The plaintiff petitioned the court to declare unlawful and cancel the Central Military Medical Commission of the Armed Forces of Ukraine’s decision, formalised by meeting protocol No. 8867 on 13 December 2024, which established the causal link of her late husband’s diseases, wounds, concussions, injuries, and disabilities. She also requested that the defendant be compelled to review this decision and issue a resolution stating: "The disease that led to death and the cause of death are indeed related to the defence of the Fatherland."
The plaintiff stated that her husband’s death occurred due to a deterioration in his health while undergoing treatment at the State Institution "L. V. Hromashevsky Institute of Epidemiology and Infectious Diseases of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine" during his military service. The contested decision had established the causal link as "Disease related to military service," which she disputed.
Soldier’s Combat Service
The staff sergeant served directly in the anti-terrorist operation, its support, and the protection of Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity from 19 June 2014 to 22 June 2015, from 14 October 2016 to 13 April 2018, and from 29 December 2018 to 12 April 2021. He also participated in activities necessary for Ukraine’s defence, protecting the security of the population and state interests in connection with the Russian Federation’s military aggression against Ukraine from 28 March 2023 until his death. In November 2023, he was involved in such activities in Kolodyazne, Kupiansk district, Kharkiv region.
Repeated Hospitalisations During Service
During his service, the staff sergeant was periodically hospitalised. In August 2017, he was diagnosed with chronic gastroduodenitis (exacerbation). In March 2020, he was treated for chronic bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. In November 2020, significant residual changes from spontaneously cured tuberculosis, in the form of fibrosis of the upper lobes of both lungs and other alterations, were identified. According to medical certificate No. 1512 dated 19 November 2020, the causal link was determined as "Disease, YES, related to military service"; he was deemed unfit for military service in peacetime, but limited fit in wartime. On 1 February 2021, the medical-social examination commission established a Group III disability with the cause "disease acquired during military service." On 12 April 2021, he was discharged from military service on health grounds.
New Severe Diseases Detected After Mobilisation
On 28 March 2023, he was called up for military service due to mobilisation. In September–October 2023, he received treatment for thoracic spine osteochondrosis. In February 2024, he was diagnosed with vertebrogenic thoracolumbar pain, widespread osteochondrosis, and other conditions. On 15 March 2024, the garrison military medical commission established diagnoses including residual changes of tuberculosis, chronic bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, and vertebrogenic radiculitis; the causal link was given as "Disease, YES, related to military service"; he was recognised as limited fit.
From 27 March to 30 April 2024, he was hospitalised at the Clinical Centre "Main Military Clinical Hospital" with diagnoses of chronic retroviral infection, clinical stage IV, severe immunosuppression, toxoplasmic encephalitis, oedema of the right cerebral hemisphere with compression of the lateral ventricles and displacement syndrome, and oropharyngeal candidiasis, among others. On 12 April 2024, the hospital military medical commission established the causal link "YES, related to military service"; he was deemed unfit for military service and removed from military registration. He was transferred to the State Institution "L. V. Hromashevsky Institute of Epidemiology and Infectious Diseases of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine," where he continued treatment until his death, with diagnoses including newly diagnosed central nervous system tuberculosis (encephalitis) and cerebral toxoplasmosis.
The plaintiff contended that all diseases arose during the performance of military duties and direct participation in activities ensuring national security and defence, and therefore his death was related to the defence of the Fatherland.
The Court’s Decision
The Zhytomyr District Administrative Court, in case 240/7714/25, decided to partially uphold the claim.
The court declared unlawful and cancelled the decision of the Central Military Medical Commission of the Armed Forces of Ukraine regarding the establishment of the staff sergeant’s disease’s causal link, as formalised by meeting protocol No. 8867 dated 13 December 2024.
The court compelled the Central Military Medical Commission of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to reconsider the issue of establishing the causal link of the staff sergeant’s disease, taking into account the court’s conclusions in this decision.
The remaining claims, including the demand to issue a resolution with the specific wording "The disease that led to death and the cause of death are indeed related to the defence of the Fatherland," were denied.
The court ordered the recovery of 1,211.20 hryvnias in paid court fees in favour of the plaintiff, to be drawn from the budget allocations of the Central Military Medical Commission of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The court noted that, according to subparagraph "d" of paragraph 21.5 of chapter 21 of section II of the Regulation on Military Medical Expertise in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, decisions by the military medical commission on the causal link of diseases are made with the wording "Disease, YES, related to the defence of the Fatherland" if the disease arose during service in military units and institutions that were part of the active army during the protection of Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, during direct participation in activities necessary to ensure Ukraine’s defence, protect the security of the population and state interests in connection with military aggression against Ukraine, or when a disease that arose before this period reached such development during these periods of service that it limited fitness or led to unfitness for military service. Such a decision is also made for chronic slowly progressive diseases if medical documents etiopathogenetically allow attributing or confirm the onset of the disease during participation in combat operations.
The court established that during military service from April 2024, the staff sergeant developed new diseases that became grounds for recognising him unfit for military service and ultimately led to his death. During this period, he participated in activities to ensure Ukraine’s defence. The military medical commission ought to have established the onset of such diseases according to the Regulation, requested relevant evidence if necessary, and evaluated them.
The court referred to the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the norms of the Regulation on Military Medical Expertise in its ruling dated 25 April 2025, in case No. 620/11008/24. The defendant violated the procedure for adopting the contested decision as it was made without considering the establishment of the onset of new diseases and without clarifying whether they were chronic slowly progressive.
The court emphasised that, according to part four of article 245 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the court may compel a public authority to make a decision in favour of the plaintiff if all conditions defined by law for its adoption are met, and making such a decision does not imply discretion. In cases of discretion, the court compels the authority to resolve the issue considering the legal assessment provided by the court. Obliging the commission to issue a resolution with a specific wording without verifying proper grounds was deemed premature.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
