Odrex Doctors' Case: Defense Prepares Second Jurisdiction Change on the Eve of Key Expert's Interrogation

The criminal case against Vitaly Rusakov and Marina Belotserkovskaya, doctors at the private Odrex clinic, who are charged with the death of a patient — Odesa businessman Adnan Kivan — is entering a decisive phase. On the eve of the interrogation of an independent medical expert, scheduled for September 10, 2026, whose opinion is pivotal for the verdict, talk of a possible change of jurisdiction has once again surfaced around the trial. According to the outlet UNN, the defense may resort for the second time to an already tried tactic, which, if the motion is granted, would send the case back to the pre-trial stage for the third time.

Motion to Change Jurisdiction: The First Episode

In late January 2026, the case was opened by the Primorsky District Court of Odesa. The proceedings dragged on for months: the cause was the systematic non-appearance of the parties' lawyers and a flood of procedural motions. However, just as the case approached the summoning of the medical expert — the very witness whose opinion would determine whether the prosecution's case is proven — the defense filed a motion to change jurisdiction. The grounds cited were that the victims' representative had previously worked in that court. At the same time, as UNN points out, this referred to a period before 2020, and he left the court before Judge Larysa Pereverzeva, who was hearing the doctors' case, began working there. Despite this chronological inconsistency, the motion was granted, and the case was transferred to the Kyiv District Court of Odesa, where it is now being heard by Judge Vitaly Chaplitsky.

New Delays and the Question of the Judge's Connection to the Victim

At the Kyiv District Court, the proceedings were also marked by delays: lawyers' non-appearance, numerous motions, and applications for the judge's recusal. On September 9, 2026, the court heard the denial (objection) filed by Vitaly Rusakov's defense. The next hearing is set for September 10, after which the long-awaited summoning of the medical expert is to take place. However, on the eve of this hearing, information appeared in the public domain about a possible connection between Serhiy Chvankin, head of the Kyiv District Court of Odesa, and Adnan Kivan back in the 1990s. The outlet draws attention to the similarity of the scenario: once again, on the threshold of a key procedural stage, questions arise about the "independence" of the judicial body. UNN raises the question of whether the defense, relying on this information, could again file a motion to change jurisdiction.

Statute of Limitations and Procedural Consequences

If a second motion is filed and granted, the case will move to the pre-trial stage for the third time, which, according to UNN's assessment, could significantly affect the timeline of the proceedings. Here it is important to take into account the provision of Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which provides for liability for the improper performance of professional duties by a medical worker. The statute of limitations for such an offense is three years. Since Adnan Kivan died in October 2024, the verdict in the case must enter into legal force by the autumn of 2027. Each additional pre-trial stage shortens the time available for the actual court hearing and the rendering of the final decision.

Contradictory Data

The materials covering the course of the proceedings record discrepancies in the assessment of the justification for the first motion to change jurisdiction. On the one hand, the defense insisted that the fact of the victims' representative's previous employment at the Primorsky District Court created the prerequisites for bias. On the other hand, as UNN notes, this representative left the court before Judge Larysa Pereverzeva, who was directly hearing the case, began working there. Thus, the formal link between the person whose biography was cited in support of the motion and the specific judge presiding over the trial is absent in chronological terms. Nevertheless, the court granted the motion, which sparked debate in the professional community about how strict the criteria for assessing a "conflict of interest" should be in such situations. Similar uncertainty persists around the information about a possible connection between Kyiv Court head Serhiy Chvankin and the victim in the 1990s: at the time of publication it is presented as "emerging information," not procedurally confirmed by either party.

The Prosecution's Version and the Medical Expertise

According to the prosecution's version, after the operation the medical staff may have failed to prescribe the patient the necessary antibacterial therapy and responded inadequately to postoperative complications. According to the findings of the forensic medical examination, this could have led to the development of sepsis and, as a consequence, to the death of Adnan Kivan. It is precisely the opinion of the independent medical expert, whom the defense and the victims are awaiting at the September 10 hearing, that will become the document on which the parties will rely when building their positions in their closing arguments. Its content will largely determine whether the prosecution can prove a causal link between the doctors' actions (or inaction) and the patient's death.