Can the death of his father be compensation for the death of his son?

      On April 17, a court trial began regarding a lawsuit against the Ministry of Health and the Ambulance Station for "compensation for moral damage caused by the failure to provide medical assistance," filed in the Oktyabrsky District Court by the mother and son of 45-year-old Denis Ovchinnikov, who died on January 24 after being robbed in the entrance of his own home.

      The next hearing is scheduled for May 5, and the reason for the postponement was Judge Tatyana Zholobova's demand to "bring the father of the deceased Denis — Valery Ovchinnikov — before her." Even though 69-year-old Valery Leonidovich, upon learning of his son's death, suffered a severe stroke and today, paralyzed, can only "slightly move his eyes," sometimes wiggle his fingers, and rarely make indistinct sounds.

      "When the judge was informed about the condition of the father of the deceased Denis, Tatyana Anatolyevna bombarded the plaintiffs with questions, and there was no mercy in her tone: 'Is he the father? Is he alive? Is he breathing? Is he aware that there are court proceedings?'" - says lawyer Tatyana Bazhina, representing the interests of the applicants.

      To which the mother of the deceased — Tatyana Ovchinnikova reacted with one phrase: "He (her husband) will die, dear"... However, the orphaned relatives of Denis, analyzing the categorical demand of Judge Zholobova, mostly agreed that they would not risk "fulfilling the inhumane demands of Themis." After all, transporting a bedridden paralytic from home to the Oktyabrsky court building, delivering him to the fourth floor of the agency, placing the stretcher in a small meeting room, and the subsequent return journey — it is unlikely that one should expect any relief for the truly living and breathing father who has lost his only son.

      Let us recall that on January 24, 2026, Denis Ovchinnikov, who turned 45 on the 13th, went to a grocery store on Mira Street, across the road from his home, around four in the afternoon. He felt unwell in the sales area, prompting the sellers to call an ambulance. Its staff likely did not measure his blood pressure or perform an ECG.

      While the ambulance doctor — a "young paramedic," sat in the car filling out documents, Ovchinnikov lost consciousness again at the stop. At 17:18, the paramedic, without calling a second team to determine the cause of the repeated loss of consciousness, escorted Ovchinnikov to the path leading to his home. And despite the fact that a completely sober person, as indicated in the expert conclusion, collapsed in the snow at his feet, he left him outside.

      At 17:20, Denis managed to get to his feet and walk to the entrance, where at 17:23 he collapsed on the steps leading to the second floor, and the surveillance camera installed in the entrance recorded his dying agony. At 17:35, Ovchinnikov's body was discovered by neighbors. At 18:24, the arriving ambulance doctors confirmed the patient's death. At 21:35, workers from the service that handles the transportation of the deceased dragged the body to the first-floor landing, thoroughly searched the jacket and pants, and a stack of bills moved from the deceased's left pocket to the "funeral worker's" pocket. The deceased's hands were tied with his own belt, the body was wrapped in plastic, and at 21:37 it was taken out of the entrance.

      Interestingly, despite not considering it possible to continue the hearing without the paralyzed Valery Ovchinnikov, Tatyana Zholobova did not emphasize that the deceased's son — Maxim, living in Yekaterinburg, could not participate in the court proceedings because, despite all the requirements and conditions he fulfilled, he was not connected to the video conference. She also "did not notice" that none of the defendants appeared in court — there were no representatives from the Ministry of Health or the ambulance service.

      However, the court did not trust the "copy of the power of attorney" provided by lawyer Tatyana Bazhina. This resulted in a demand to "review the original document," which is with the son of the deceased, who was not present at the hearing due to "the absence of video conferencing." The judge also demanded that the plaintiffs pay the state duty, although on March 4, the Regional Court, considering an appeal in a similar "medical case," pointed out the illegality of such a charge.