It was the two co-judges in the case who believed that Omarchanov should be acquitted. The court administrator disagreed. – The court cannot see that the defendant knowingly and willingly carried out his work in violation of the requirements for professional soundness and caring assistance, says the judgment from the Agder district court. The doctor, who was never an orthopedist, has wrongly operated on dozens of patients, but only one case was not outdated. Omarchanov was prosecuted for breaching the Health Personnel Act after a botched operation in Kristiansand in 2019. During the trial, prosecutor Hans Olav Røyr asked that the doctor be punished with 18 days in prison. Defense attorney Carl Henning Leknesund asked for acquittal. – I am satisfied with the verdict, says Leknesund to news. Omarchanov has lived in Germany for the past two years. Leknesund has not spoken to him directly, either before or after the trial. The verdict has been sent to Omarchanov’s German lawyer. Svein Are Auestad was wrongly operated on by Omarchanov in 2019. It was his case that was before the court last week. Photo: Per-Kåre Sandbakk / news – A slap in the face The doctor has been involved in a number of botched operations in Southern Norway in recent years. So far, around 60 patients have been granted compensation, and 160 patients have complained to Norwegian Patient Compensation. Omarchanov has also been stripped of his authorization as a doctor. Svein Are Auestad was wrongly operated on by Omarchanov in 2019. It was his case that went to court last week. – This is a slap in the face. I am very disappointed, says Auestad about the verdict. He says he hopes the police will appeal. Photo: Per-Kåre Sandbakk / news Disagreement about punishment According to the verdict, there was disagreement about whether Omarchanov should be sentenced to punishment. Assistant judge Clara Chang thought it was proven that he had acted grossly negligently, while the two co-judges thought it had not been proven. Sørlandet Hospital receives strong criticism in the judgment. – The co-judges find that they can strongly criticize the hospital for the persistent failure of routine with inadequate routine description which led to the defendant largely being allowed to work without clear frameworks and clear limitations.
ttn-69