A Sochi resident filed a cassation appeal against the denial of his claim against a dental clinic.

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

Sochi resident Alexander Gorovoy, who accuses a private dental clinic of diagnosing him with a precancerous condition due to poor-quality dental implant placement, has filed a cassation appeal against the lower courts' refusal to consider his claim against the clinic.

As reported by "Caucasian Knot," Sochi resident Alexander Gorovoy appealed to a private clinic regarding the installation of dental implants. He claims the work was poorly performed, and doctors diagnosed Gorovoy with a precancerous condition. The court rejected his claim against the clinic, but the decision was later upheld by the appellate court.

On February 28, Sochi resident Alexander Gorovoy filed an appeal to the cassation court against the decision of the Central District Court of Sochi and the Krasnodar Regional Court, which dismissed his claim against a private dental clinic. Gorovoy himself told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent about this.

Gorovoy demanded the termination of the dental service contracts, the recovery of 189,500 and 29,300 rubles paid under the contracts, 483,700 rubles to correct the defects, 684,000 rubles in penalties, 700,000 rubles in compensation for moral damages, as well as legal and medical expenses totaling over 300,000 rubles, and a fine of 50% of the awarded amount.

In support of his position, he presented a report from the Interregional Center for Expertise and Assessment, LLC, which identified defects in the implant installation and established a direct link to the disease. However, a forensic examination conducted by a commission from the Kuban State Medical University reached different conclusions. The experts stated that Gorovoy had been diagnosed with leukoplakia on January 11, 2021, prior to the start of treatment at the clinic. They also stated that the patient "repeatedly violated the treatment regimen and failed to attend appointments," and that treatment at the private dental clinic had been conducted "without violating clinical guidelines." The experts concluded that Gorovoy's current oral condition was "the result of unfinished treatment due to the patient's fault."

The court accepted the forensic examination as the basis, stating that it was conducted within the framework of procedural law, and that the experts had been warned of criminal liability. The plaintiff's review was deemed "the private opinion of a person not involved in the case." The appellate court agreed with these findings.

Gorov filed a cassation appeal, insisting that the forensic examination's findings contradicted the medical documents he presented, and that the courts had failed to properly evaluate his arguments regarding mucosal trauma following implant placement.

Meanwhile, he continued to appeal to regulatory authorities. On February 28, Gorovoy received a response from the Krasnodar Krai office of Roszdravnadzor to his complaints. In a letter dated February 20, the agency stated that the private dental clinic operates under license No. L041-01126-23/00333829 dated August 20, 2019, and noted that "there are currently no grounds for conducting inspections," since inspections are conducted in the presence of "reliable information about an immediate threat to life or causing serious/moderate harm to health."

At the same time, the supervisory authority noted that due to "the presence of signs of violations regarding the observance of citizens' rights," a decision was made to issue a warning to the clinic about the inadmissibility of violating mandatory requirements.

The letter separately explains the procedure for obtaining medical documentation under Article 22 of Federal Law No. 323-FZ and the possibility of appealing to the prosecutor's office in the event of an unlawful refusal to issue it.

I have already written a hundred Letters, and in response, only formal replies and cover-ups of the clinic's activities.

Gorovy considers the response perfunctory. "I've already written a hundred letters, and in response, only formal replies and cover-ups of the clinic's activities," he said. According to him, the main problem was that for a long time, he was unable to obtain the full set of medical records necessary for an independent evaluation of his treatment.

The man will continue to seek a review of the case in the cassation court. "I believe patients should understand: they need to keep all documents, request copies of their medical records immediately, and not hope that things will get easier later," he said.

Gorovy intends to take his case to the Supreme Court in search of justice if the cassation court dismisses his appeal.

Lawyer notes several controversial points in Roszdravnadzor's response

Independent attorney Olga Vidova, who reviewed the supervisory authority's response, noted several controversial points. First, the agency cites the lack of grounds for an inspection, citing the law on state control, but simultaneously acknowledges "signs of violations" and issues a warning.

For the applicant, this means that their arguments have not been substantively verified during an on-site or documentary inspection.

"A warning is the mildest response measure, which does not involve a full-fledged factual investigation. Essentially, the government agency notes that certain risks exist, but does not see formal grounds for control measures. For the applicant, this means that their arguments have not been substantively verified during an on-site or documentary inspection," the lawyer explained to a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

She also noted that the response effectively shifts the burden of obtaining medical documents to the patient, suggesting that they contact the prosecutor's office, if necessary, in accordance with Article 5.39 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. "This is a legally correct explanation, but for the citizen, it's an additional barrier: they need to initiate another proceeding, gather evidence of the refusal, and go through a new procedure," the lawyer noted.

The Gorovoy case illustrates a broader issue: how effectively a patient can defend their rights in a dispute with a private medical organization. In a situation where a forensic examination is considered decisive evidence, and the supervisory authority limits itself to issuing a warning without verification, the opportunities for further appeal are significantly reduced, Vidova believes.

The independent lawyer advises citizens, when choosing a private clinic, to carefully review licenses, reviews, contract terms, and keep a written record of all complaints. "We shouldn't generalize about all private medical organizations, but it's important for patients to understand that defending their rights in medical disputes is complex and requires time, resources, and professional support," she emphasized.