Prosecutors in the Khmelnytskyi region are seeking to have disability status reinstated through the courts following the scandal involving the Medical and Social Expertise Commission
This is according to an investigation by NGL.media.
Following the scandal involving the Khmelnytskyi Regional Medical and Social Examination Commission, Ukraine began conducting mass checks on law enforcement officers and other public officials who were receiving disability pensions.
According to NGL.media, Khmelnytskyi region became one of the key areas for these checks. Following the arrest in October 2024 of Tetyana Krupa, head of the Khmelnytskyi Regional Medical and Social Expert Commission, it emerged that a significant number of local prosecutors had been registered as disabled.
During searches of Krupa’s premises, investigators reportedly found nearly $6 million in cash, dozens of properties in Kyiv, Lviv, Spain, Austria and Turkey, millions of dollars in foreign bank accounts, luxury cars and other assets.
Following this, journalist Yuriy Butusov published a list of 50 prosecutors to whom the Medical and Social Expertise Commission (MSEC), under Krupa’s leadership, had assigned a Group II disability status.
Subsequently, the Office of the Prosecutor General confirmed that almost 30% of prosecutors in the Khmelnytskyi region have a disability. This was described as an abnormally high figure compared to other regions.
How many prosecutors had their disability status revoked
Following the NSDC’s decision, mass checks of the MSEC’s decisions regarding prosecutors and other civil servants began in Ukraine.
As reported by the State Bureau of Investigation in August last year, following these checks, over 800 MSEC decisions on the assignment of disability categories were revoked.
Staff at the Khmelnytskyi Regional Prosecutor’s Office were checked separately.
In response to a request from NGL.media, the Ministry of Health reported that disability status had been revoked for 33 prosecutors, whilst the disability category had been changed for a further 23 prosecutors.
In total, 78 Khmelnytskyi prosecutors were subject to the checks.
How prosecutors are regaining their disability status through the courts
NGL.media analysed the court rulings and found that 32 prosecutors from the “Butusov list” have already appealed against the results of the checks at the Khmelnytskyi District Administrative Court.
18 prosecutors have already received favourable rulings and had their disability status reinstated.
In only five cases did the court uphold the legality of the decision by the specialised research institute that had revoked the disability status.
The Ukrainian State Research Institute for Medical and Social Problems of Disability, located in Dnipro, is conducting a review of the validity of the MSEC’s decisions. Prosecutors whose status was in doubt were required to undergo an examination there.
However, some of them did not agree with the results of the reviews or the procedure by which they were conducted.
For example, Oleksandr Terletskyi, a prosecutor at the Khmelnytskyi Regional Prosecutor’s Office who had a permanent Group II disability, did not travel to Dnipro for the review. Following this, his disability status was automatically revoked and he was dismissed from his post. He is now attempting to return to work and reinstate his Group II disability status through the courts.
Why disability status is important for prosecutors
NGL.media explains that for prosecutors, a Group I or II disability status means more than just social status.
In addition to their salary, they are entitled to a pension amounting to 60% of their monthly salary.
The basic salary of a district prosecutor currently stands at 52,500 UAH, so a disability pension could amount to almost 30,000 UAH.
However, there is a restriction: the pension cannot exceed 10 times the subsistence minimum for people who have lost their ability to work. This year, that figure is 25,950 UAH.
People with disabilities also enjoy certain benefits. It is more difficult to dismiss them or transfer them to another post; they are entitled to longer holidays, and in the event of redundancies, they have a better chance of keeping their jobs.
Furthermore, in the event of dismissal from the prosecutor’s office, a disability may protect against conscription.
Why the courts sided with the prosecutors
The Administrative Court does not assess medical conditions or verify diagnoses.
The judges analysed the procedure first and foremost: whether there was a legal basis for reviewing the MSEC’s decision, whether the person had been properly notified of the review, and whether a full medical examination had been carried out.
It was precisely these procedural violations that were the main reason for the defeats suffered by the Ukrainian State Research Institute of Medical and Social Problems of Disability.
In most cases, prosecutors argued that the letter from the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) or the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), on the basis of which the review was initiated, was not a valid procedural document.
A typical ruling by the Khmelnytskyi District Administrative Court states that letters from NABU or the SBI do not constitute a procedural decision within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Therefore, in the court’s view, the institute had no grounds to review the validity of the MSEC’s decision on the basis of such documents.
One of the prosecutors, Oleksandr Martyniuk, explained to NGL.media that he was challenging not the fact of the change in disability group itself, but the procedure. According to him, he underwent an examination in Dnipro for almost two weeks, after which his disability group was changed from II to III. However, the prosecutor believes that this was done in breach of procedure, and the court of first instance upheld his claim.
Another ground for overturning the decisions was the in absentia rulings.
Prosecutor Oleksiy Lugovyi told NGL.media that he had travelled to Dnipro himself, but was informed that the decision had already been made in absentia. Yaroslav Dranovskyi, a judge at the Khmelnytskyi District Administrative Court, upheld his claim and reinstated his disability status. The institute is currently attempting to appeal this decision.
Why the NDI began winning some of its cases
According to NGL.media, representatives of the NDI previously often ignored court hearings and failed to provide sufficient evidence to strengthen their case.
The situation began to change in the spring of 2026, when the Khmelnytskyi District Administrative Court handed down its first rulings in favour of the Institute rather than the prosecutors.
There are currently only five such rulings.
In these cases, the NDI was more active in the court proceedings, submitting explanations and arguing its case. The institute’s lawyers managed to convince the court that the inspections were carried out within the framework of a criminal case, and therefore the institute had grounds for them.
The NII has also appealed ten lost cases.
The institute’s legal department explained to NGL.media that the problems with administrative claims are partly linked to the reorganisation of the institution itself and a lack of resources to handle a large number of court cases.
The head of the institute’s legal support department, Oleksandr Dovzhenko, said that in October 2024 the institution was granted the powers of the central Medical and Social Expertise Commission (MSEC), and on 1 January 2025 the centre for assessing a person’s daily functioning was launched.
According to him, the new system had not previously been in place at this institution, so time was needed to go through the reorganisation period and understand how to work with the new procedures.
Previously, Dovzhenko was the only lawyer at the institution. Subsequently, a department was set up and additional lawyers were hired. After that, the institute began to win court cases more frequently.
What next
NGL.media points out that there may be staff members within the prosecutor’s office whose health condition genuinely warranted disability status.
The purpose of the checks was to confirm the status of those who needed it and to revoke it for those who were receiving payments and benefits without justification.
In theory, the Research Institute for Medical and Social Problems of Disability could repeat the checks on prosecutors against whom it lost in court, but this time in full compliance with all procedural requirements.
Furthermore, as the first successful examples show, the institute could defend its position more vigorously in court hearings.
As reported by ThePublic, in May 2026, people with Group I disability will retain benefits for housing, transport, utilities, medicines and rehabilitation aids. At the same time, one of the key transport discounts is valid only until 15 May.
Follow us on Telegram
