Odrex Doctors May Avoid Conviction in the Case of Adnan Kivan's Death Due to Statute of Limitations

In the high-profile case concerning the death of businessman Adnan Kivan during treatment at the Odrex clinic in Odesa, the court process is effectively restarting. After the transfer of the criminal proceedings from the Primorsky District Court of Odesa to the Kyiv District Court, the case review has returned to the starting point.

In legal circles, such procedural actions can be perceived as one of the classic mechanisms for delaying criminal proceedings – especially in cases where time is a critical factor for the accused. If the court fails to deliver a verdict before the statute of limitations expires, the criminal proceedings may be closed regardless of what medical examinations and evidence establish.

The case concerns criminal proceedings against Odrex clinic doctors Vitalii Rusakov and Marina Bielotserkovska, who are being tried under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine – improper performance of professional duties by a medical worker, which could have caused serious consequences for the patient.

According to the investigation, after the operation, businessman Adnan Kivan may not have been prescribed the necessary antibacterial therapy and the postoperative complications may not have been properly addressed. As a result, according to the expert conclusion, the patient developed sepsis, which could have been the cause of death.

In recent months, the case was approaching one of its key stages – the examination of the medical component of the proceedings. The court was to move on to analyzing medical documentation, expert conclusions, and hearing an independent oncologist expert.

This stage is decisive in cases of medical negligence. Judges are not medical specialists and cannot independently assess whether the doctors' actions complied with clinical protocols, whether the treatment strategy was correctly chosen, whether the medical staff responded timely to complications, or whether critically important time for the patient was lost.

The medical expert "translates" complex clinical processes into legal facts. At this stage, the court receives answers to key questions: whether treatment standards were violated, whether medical documentation was properly maintained, and whether there is a causal link between the doctors' actions and the patient's death.

It was at this moment that the process unexpectedly returned to the very beginning. After the decision to change jurisdiction, the case effectively enters a new review cycle. Even more important than the fact of the court change itself are its procedural consequences. Such proceedings are inherently lengthy: forensic medical examinations, large volumes of documentation, the need to hear specialized experts, and the complexity of establishing a causal link between doctors' actions and patient outcomes stretch the process over years.

In such a situation, any procedural decision that "resets" the review or returns the case to previous stages automatically benefits the accused.

Since the Odrex doctors are being tried under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, a three-year statute of limitations applies to the case. This means the court has a limited time frame to complete the criminal proceedings and issue a verdict that will come into legal force. If this does not happen before the statute of limitations expires, the criminal proceedings may be closed regardless of the medical evidence, expert conclusions, and circumstances established by the court.

In such a case, the bereaved family of Adnan Kivan may never receive a legal answer to the main question of the case – whether the actions or inactions of the Odrex doctors caused the businessman’s death. The court process risks ending not with an evaluation of medical evidence and a verdict, but with the expiration of procedural time.

Effectively, this means that the doctors accused of improper performance of professional duties may avoid criminal liability not because of disproved evidence or proven innocence, but due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

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