Improper Performance of Duties by a Medical Professional Due to Negligent or Bad-Faith Attitude Toward Human Health
A criminal case registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations (ERDR) under No. 257511031000798 pursuant to Article 317, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, based on the statement of A.T. Ooy against A.A. V and A.A. Ga, is currently being investigated by the Inquiry Department of the Police Department of the Almaly District.
On February 5, 2026, the Inquiry Officer, having reviewed the materials of the pre-trial investigation in criminal case No. 257511031000798, ESTABLISHED:
On February 24, 2025, a report was submitted regarding the conduct of an unscheduled inspection of Individual Entrepreneur “DA”, located at: 152 Karasai Batyr Street, Almaty.
During the preliminary investigation, it was established that in February 2024, the victim, A.T. Oa, underwent dental treatment by dentist A.A. V, who replaced the fillings in teeth 36 and 37. Shortly thereafter, a piece of the filling broke off, and A.A. V stated that teeth 36 and 37 needed to be covered with crowns because the filling would not hold any longer. Having agreed, dentist A.A. V prepared teeth 36 and 37 by grinding them down and took an impression. On the day the crowns were to be installed on the two teeth, she was unable to close her teeth in her mouth, as the teeth did not meet. A.A. V ground down the healthy upper teeth 26 and 27, after which constant severe pain immediately began when drinking and consuming sweet and hard foods. She informed dentist A.A. V of this and visited him repeatedly; he covered the teeth with something, but this did not make her feel any better. The dentist stated that the nerves in teeth 26 and 27 had to be removed and that there was no other option, otherwise the teeth would continue to hurt.
Subsequently, on April 29, 2024, in order to reduce sensitivity, A.A. V proposed to A.T. Ooy to place medication in teeth 2.6 and 2.7, warning her that if the sensitivity persisted, the nerve would have to be removed mechanically, to which A.T. Ooy gave her verbal consent.
Since September 29, 2024, A.T. Oa had been unable to eat or drink due to pain. When closing her teeth, unbearable pain occurred. A.A. V was hospitalized for treatment and referred her, as he told her, to his colleague, a therapist, Gu Adil Ashur-Ogly.
At the appointed time, on October 11, 2024, A.A. G removed the remaining nerve tissue from teeth 26 and 27. Having taken an X-ray on the floor below, A.A. G examined the X-ray image and said that everything was fine. When the anesthesia wore off, severe pain began, and as a result she could not close her mouth because the teeth came into contact with each other. In this regard, she contacted A.A. Gym and informed him of this, to which she was told that she was sensitive and that the pain should pass within 7–10 days.
On October 17, 2024, a 3D scan was performed, which showed that tooth 27 had been perforated through and through between the roots, and that material was present in the maxillary sinus, as a result of which severe inflammation had developed. Tooth 26 had not been completely treated, and in another root the material had been brought beyond the apex into the maxillary sinus.
On October 17, 2024, at the No. 5 Maxillofacial Hospital of the city of Almaty, tooth 27 was extracted and the material was removed from the maxillary sinus.
It follows from the testimony of the victim, A.T. Ooy, that dentist A.A. V and A.A. G improperly provided medical assistance.
On December 3, 2024, at Municipal Clinical Hospital No. 5, due to a complication that occurred after treatment of the tooth, A.T. Ooy underwent an operation, “endoscopic maxillotomy,” performed by physician M.A. S.
According to the inspection report of the Department of the Committee for Medical and Pharmaceutical Control of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Republic of Kazakhstan for the city of Almaty (hereinafter – the Department), during an on-site unscheduled inspection at the address: Almaty, K. Batyr Street, 152 / N Street, 152/140, office No. 310, for the purpose of reviewing the Act on the Appointment of an Unscheduled Inspection No. 13 dated February 10, 2025, it was established at the specified address that Individual Entrepreneur “DA” was located in office No. 309. The Director of Individual Entrepreneur “DA” (hereinafter – the IE), represented by I Z A O, refused to sign the appointment act, stating that A.A. V and A.A. G specified in the complaint were not employees of the IE, and stated that he had not provided dental care to A.T. Ooy. With the exception of I Z.A., there were no other employees on the staff of the IE. An act was drawn up; an explanation from the director of the IE and copies of the simplified declaration were attached for confirmation.
Based on the above, the unscheduled inspection of Individual Entrepreneur “DA”, located at: Almaty, K. Batyr Street, 152 / N Street, 152/140, office No. 310, pursuant to Act No. 13 dated February 10, 2025, on the appointment of the inspection, was closed and removed from registration.
In connection with the above, there are no grounds for conducting an unscheduled inspection with registration in the DKPSiSU, pursuant to the submitted report.
At present, in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of Articles 8, 24, 121–125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, aimed at preventing, impartially, promptly and fully detecting and investigating the criminal offense, exposing and bringing to criminal responsibility the persons who committed it, as well as for a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of the circumstances necessary and sufficient for the proper resolution of the case, collection, securing, examination and evaluation of evidence, including for the purpose of establishing the degree of severity of harm caused to health, it is necessary to conduct a forensic medical examination.
On April 18, 2025, the Police Department of the Almaly District of the Police Department of the city of Almaty registered criminal case No. 257511031000798 on the grounds of a criminal offense provided for by Article 317, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Based on the foregoing and taking into account that it is necessary, within the material, to establish factual data relevant to the resolution of the criminal case, which are established through the application of special scientific knowledge, and guided by Articles 198, 270 and 272 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
RESOLVED:
To appoint, in this case, a commission forensic medical examination based on the materials of criminal, civil and administrative cases, corpses, victims, accused persons and other persons (forensic medical examination based on the materials of criminal, civil and administrative cases), and entrust its conduct to the experts of the Institute of Forensic Examinations for the city of Almaty.
To submit the following questions to the expert for resolution:
2.1) Are there any deficiencies in the examination, diagnosis and provision of dental care to citizen A.T. Ooy by intern A.A. Gym, who carried out her activities at the medical center “Author’s Medicine” at the address: Almaty, K. Batyr Street, 152? If so, what do they consist of and how did they affect the state of health of A.T. Ooy (loss of teeth, persistent tooth pain, etc.)?
2.2) Are there any deficiencies in the examination, diagnosis and provision of dental care to citizen A.T. Ooy by dentist A.A. V, who carried out his activities at the medical center “Author’s Medicine” located at: Almaty, Karasai Batyr Street, 152? If so, what do they consist of and how did they affect the state of health of A.T. Ooy (loss of teeth, persistent tooth pain, etc.)?
2.3) Is there a causal relationship between the adverse outcome for A.T. Ooy and the nature of the diagnosis and treatment provided by dentist A.A. V?
2.4) Is there a causal relationship between the adverse outcome for A.T. Ooy and the nature of the diagnosis and treatment provided by A.A. Ga?
2.5) Could a favorable outcome have been achieved if A.T. Ooy had been properly and fully diagnosed and treated by dentist A.A. V?
2.6) Could a favorable outcome have been achieved if A.T. Ooy had been properly and fully diagnosed and treated by A.A. Gym?
2.7) Was there improper performance of professional duties by dentist A.A. V?
2.8) Was there improper performance of professional duties by A.A. Gym?
2.9) Which teeth of A.T. Ooy received medical treatment?
2.10) Did dentist A.A. V commit any violations? If so, which specific violations?
2.11) Did A.A. Gym commit any violations? If so, which specific violations?
2.12) Is there a direct causal relationship between the actions of dentist A.A. V in treating the teeth of A.T. Ooy and the adverse consequences that occurred?
2.13) Is there a direct causal relationship between the actions of intern A.A. Ga in treating the teeth of A.T. Ooy and the adverse consequences that occurred?
2.14) What degree of severity does the harm caused to the health of A.T. Ooy by the actions of dentist A.A. V constitute?
2.15) What degree of severity does the harm caused to the health of A.T. Ooy by the actions of A.A. Ga constitute?
2.16) Taking into account the inspection report of the “Department of the Committee for Medical and Pharmaceutical Control of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Republic of Kazakhstan for the city of Almaty,” consider the issue of the validity and legality of the medical care provided by dentist A.A. V and intern A.A. Gym.
3. Question from the victim A.T. Ooy:
3.1) Is a tooth an organ of the human body?
3.2) Did intern A.A. G, who had been assigned the qualification of “dental technician,” have the right to provide medical care to A.T. Ooy for treatment of a tooth?
4. Questions submitted pursuant to the motion of attorney Ooy A.S., Law Firm No. 3 of the Almaty City Bar Association, in the interests of witness A.A. V having the right to defense:
4.1) Were any defects committed by dentist A.A. V in the treatment of A.T. Ooy’s teeth? If so, what defects and at what stage of medical care?
4.2) If defects were committed by dentist A.A. V in the treatment of A.T. Ooy’s teeth, what adverse consequences occurred for the health of A.T. Ooy?
4.3) If defects were committed by dentist A.A. V in the treatment of A.T. Ooy’s teeth, is there a direct causal relationship between the defects in dental care committed by dentist A.A. V and the occurrence of any adverse outcome for the health of A.T. Ooy?
4.4) If defects were committed by dentist A.A. V in the treatment of A.T. Ooy’s teeth, was harm caused to the health of A.T. Ooy? If so, what is the degree of severity thereof?
4.5) Were any defects committed by dentist T.R.E. during the extraction of tooth 2.7 from A.T. Ooy and during the removal of the foreign body from the maxillary sinus of A.T. Ooy? If so, what defects and at what stage of medical care?
4.6) If defects were committed by dentist T.R.E. during the extraction of tooth 2.7 from A.T. Ooy and during the removal of the foreign body from the maxillary sinus of A.T. Ooy, what adverse consequences occurred for the health of A.T. Ooy?
4.7) If defects were committed by dentist T.R.E. during the extraction of tooth 2.7 from A.T. Ooy and during the removal of the foreign body from the maxillary sinus of A.T. Ooy, is there a direct causal relationship between the defects in dental care committed by dentist T.R.E. and the occurrence of any adverse outcome for the health of A.T. Ooy?
4.8) If defects were committed by dentist T.R.E., was harm caused to the health of A.T. Ooy? If so, what is the degree of severity thereof?
4.9) Pursuant to the motion of attorney Ooy A.S., Law Firm No. 3 of the Almaty City Bar Association, in the interests of witness A.A. V having the right to defense, include in the commission forensic medical examination entrusted to the “Institute of Forensic Examinations for the city of Almaty” expert T.A. Khalimnazarov, acting on the basis of a state license and being a member of the Republican Chamber of Forensic Experts of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
6. Questions submitted pursuant to the motion of attorney Sarzhanov G.T., in the interests of witness A.A. Ga having the right to defense:
6.1) Are there medical data confirming that the filling material entered the maxillary sinus as a result of the actions specifically of A.A. Ga, rather than after the surgical intervention performed by physician T.R.E. at Municipal Clinical Hospital No. 5 on October 17, 2024?
6.2) Could the inflammatory process, pain syndrome, impaired occlusion and other complaints of A.T. Ooy have been caused by the actions of physician T.R.E. during the extraction of the tooth and removal of the material from the maxillary sinus, or could they have resulted from postoperative complications?
6.3) Do the operative protocol, daily records and other documents of Municipal Clinical Hospital No. 5, Maxillofacial Surgery Department, contain information regarding the presence or development of postoperative complications that could have affected the health condition of the victim?
6.4) Are there indications that the deterioration of the health condition of A.T. Ooy occurred after the intervention at Municipal Clinical Hospital No. 5, Maxillofacial Surgery Department, and was not related to the treatment provided by A.A. Ga, but rather to the actions of physician T.R.E.?
6.5) Is it possible to establish precisely, based on medical records and images, at what specific point the filling material entered the maxillary sinus – before the patient sought treatment at Maxillofacial Surgery Hospital No. 5 or during/after the intervention at that clinic?
6.6) Could the intervention by T.R.E., including curettage and surgical treatment, have disrupted anatomical structures, caused inflammation, or otherwise affected the subsequent health condition of A.T. Ooy?
7.7) Was the diagnosis made by physician T.R.E., “exacerbation of chronic periodontitis of tooth 2.7. Foreign body in the maxillary sinus (filling material),” a medical basis for extraction of tooth 2.7 in accordance with the Rules for the Provision of Dental Services and the applicable clinical protocols of the Republic of Kazakhstan?
3. To clarify and resolve the above questions, provide the experts with the materials of criminal case No. 257511031000798.
As a result of the expert opinions received, as well as other investigative actions conducted, the pre-trial investigation body made a decision that there were no elements of a criminal offense and terminated the criminal case.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
