Sochi residents have successfully filed an administrative case against a gynecologist for insulting her.

THIS MATERIAL (INFORMATION) WAS PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED BY THE FOREIGN AGENT MEMO LLC, OR CONCERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE FOREIGN AGENT MEMO LLC.

Sochi residents who complained about the unethical behavior of a gynecologist received letters from the prosecutor's office informing them of the initiation of an administrative case against the doctor. They were alarmed by the fact that the agency's responses identified the doctor as an individual, not an official.

As reported by "Caucasian Knot," in early December, approximately 30 Sochi residents complained to the prosecutor's office about the gynecologist's ineffective medical care and her statements about patients. Amid the scandal, the management of a private clinic reported the dismissal of a doctor, but she continued to see patients at the city hospital's antenatal clinic. On December 21, a response was received from the Kuban Ministry of Health. Officials confirmed the violations but noted that they could not punish the doctor, as she had resigned from the antenatal clinic voluntarily.

On January 11, Sochi residents who complained about a gynecologist in the Adler District for offensive remarks directed at them received identical responses from the prosecutor's office. Letters signed by the district's deputy prosecutor, Justice Advisor I.I. Darmilov, stated that on December 22, a case was opened against the doctor for an administrative offense under Part 2 of Article 5.61 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offenses (public insult). It was sent for consideration to the magistrate of Judicial Precinct No. 89 of the Adler District of Sochi. The letter only provides the doctor's first and last name, not her status or position. Copies of the responses are available to the "Caucasian Knot."

One of the complainants, Elena, noted how long it took for the letter to arrive. "It's strange that we received the responses, dated December 22, only after the New Year holidays. Relatives sent the postcard from Saratov a week in advance, and it arrived on December 31. Meanwhile, the letter 'circulated' around the Adler district for almost two weeks," she told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

"Essentially, both the regional Ministry of Health and the prosecutor's office waited for the person to resign voluntarily to avoid being fired for cause. This allows her to find work in the future and continue her practice." "And we're talking about a man who publicly called pregnant women 'curs,'" Elena recalled. Another complainant, Irina, draws attention to the legal language in the prosecutor's office's response. "We were alarmed that the prosecutor was writing about 'Mezentseva's actions,' not the actions of an official. Lawyers explained that this could mean prosecuting her as an individual, which affects both the fine and the consequences," she told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent. Elena claims she lost her child because she wasn't seen by a gynecologist on time. She claims the doctor is threatening the complainants with libel suits. "After everything I've been through, I still have to read threats on social media from a doctor who insulted us publicly," she told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

The women stated that they intend to attend all court hearings and seek the harshest possible punishment, as well as a legal assessment of the actions of the employers who allowed the doctor to resign without disciplinary consequences.

Lawyer Elena Pavlova explained to a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent that Part 2 of Article 5.61 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation directly establishes liability for public insult. "An insult contained in a public speech, a publicly displayed work, or in the media shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of three thousand to five thousand rubles; on officials - from thirty thousand to fifty thousand rubles; "For legal entities, the penalties range from one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand rubles," she noted.

According to the lawyer, the key factor is the individual's status at the time the statements were made, not the time the case was initiated. "If the insults were committed by a doctor while she was performing her job duties and associated herself with a medical institution, including through her professional status, this could constitute the actions of an official." "The prosecutor's office's wording, which simply states 'in Mezentseva's actions,' does leave room for a more lenient categorization," Pavlova noted.

She also emphasized that resignation does not relieve administrative liability and does not prevent the retroactive establishment of an official's status if supported by evidence.

The lawyer believes that the doctor committed an ethically unseemly act and insulted those she is obligated to treat and consult. However, in her opinion, the defense of "value judgment" or "emotional statement" in this case is of little use. "The use of derogatory, zoological characteristics directed at a social group of patients is not considered acceptable criticism. "Court practice clearly regards such expressions as an insult to personal dignity," Pavlova stated.

Furthermore, according to her, the public nature of publications on social media and their accessibility to an indefinite number of people fully fall under the provisions of Part 2 of Article 5.61 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

At the same time, Pavlova also commented on the possible position of the doctor's defense. Elena Pavlova believes that the doctor may try to insist on being prosecuted as an individual rather than an official, interpreting her statements as personal opinion; claim that the statements were made outside of working hours and are not related to professional activities; claim phrases taken out of context or that the publications were addressed to "abstract individuals" rather than specific patients; and use threats of defamation lawsuits as a tool of pressure. “However, none of these positions cancel out the very fact of public humiliation of human dignity. "The final decision will depend on the completeness of the evidence and the court's integrity," the lawyer concludes, warning that the doctor could get off with a fine of five thousand rubles.