The investigator did not go to court again to extend the preventive measure against Nadezhda Buyanova, a pediatrician at Moscow clinic No. 140, in the case of military “fakes.” Lawyer Oscar Cherdzhiev spoke about this in a telegram story.
The case against the 67-year-old therapist was opened in February (Part 1 of Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code). The court refused to send the doctor to a pre-trial detention center and banned her from certain actions — using mail, telephone and the Internet and communicating with witnesses in the case.
The reason for the persecution was the statement of a 34-year-old widow of a military man who died in Ukraine. Anastasia Akinshina told the Mash telegram channel that she brought her seven-year-old son to an appointment, and when the child “began to be capricious,” the therapist asked what was causing this. The mother said that the son was missing his father. The doctor allegedly replied that the man was “a legitimate target for Ukraine, and in general, Russia itself is to blame.” The child was not in the office during the argument.
After Akinshina’s story, the chairman of the Investigative Committee, Alexander Bastrykin, demanded that a case be opened against the therapist.
The Muscovite emphasized in her story that the pediatrician moved to Russia from Ukraine, but this happened more than 30 years ago. Due to claims about the authenticity of Buyanova’s Russian passport, investigators refused to return it to the woman after the search.
Policlinic No. 140 on Jan Rainis Boulevard fired Nadezhda Buyanova, who demanded through the court that she be reinstated. At a meeting on March 29, as the lawyer said, representatives of the clinic admitted that the personnel department indicated the wrong point when dismissing the pediatrician. They added that Buyanova should have been fired “for committing an immoral offense that resulted in discredit.”
As an argument, representatives of the clinic cited the fact that Akinshina’s son was present during the dispute, although the child’s mother herself did not say this. The judge decided to request a copy of the confrontation protocol, as well as an audio recording of the appointment (all visits to doctors in Moscow clinics have been recorded since the beginning of 2024).
Representatives of clinic No. 140 confirmed that they have a recording of Akinshina’s appointment, but it was not provided to the court due to quality, since “audio recording” is carried out only for “training programs” and “it cannot be understood, who said what and when.”