Payments from the clinic or from the administration?
Just days ago the St. Petersburg Medical Committee confirmed that victims of the barium poisoning incident at the Siqueiros clinic would receive compensation, regardless of how severe their health impacts were. The incident involved patients undergoing a contrast-enhanced stomach x-ray, and the tragedy left eight people dead with more than twenty injured.
The policy outlined that all victims would be paid 300,000 rubles, with disabled individuals eligible for 500,000 rubles. Families of those who died would receive one million rubles each, as specified in the agreement provided to victims by the clinic.
What makes this situation more complex is that in mid-February 2022 the St. Petersburg governor, Alexander Beglov, announced additional city support for the victims – matching the same amount. Socialbites.ca obtained a copy of the agreement, which reveals the payment source as the clinic itself, not the city authorities. The document bears the signature of Gennady Biderman, who is listed as the acting chief physician.
Paragraph 4 of the agreement lists six grounds on which the clinic may refuse compensation. Among these is the stipulation that those who plan to pursue an additional court claim for moral damage in the future would forfeit that right if they sign the agreement now.
One clause reads: if monetary compensation for damage to life or health is withdrawn from GKDC No. 1 by court decision or by an amicable agreement, or if a request for monetary compensation is made, compensation may be refused. The document states that the court will evaluate compensation for life or health damage.
Can victims get more?
In Komzdrav media it was explained that payments would come from the clinic while noting that the clinic operates as a city institution. An official stated that if victims accept the compensation first and then file a lawsuit, they will not be deprived of that compensation. The document, however, refers to claims from those who had already turned to the court beforehand.
Yet legal professionals disagree with this interpretation. They say the document addresses compensation for non-pecuniary health damage and is not limited to the government’s previously announced payments. These professionals point out that different funding sources and purposes may be involved, and pursuing money from the city administration in court might fail if no payment appointment document has been issued. The core question becomes whether such a payment appointment from the city exists and whether it was properly communicated to the victims.
According to a lawyer, victims should first receive government payments and only then resolve the clinic’s potential liability for non-pecuniary damage. If the clinic signs an agreement, it could foreclose access to other avenues. The contract itself notes a dual arrangement: the clinic would compensate for moral damage, while government funds reflect one-time, unrequited assistance. The distinction matters for future claims and potential court actions.
Criminal lawyer Maxim Kalinov underscored that a legal right to claim moral damages exists for each victim. He suggested that if the government money is accepted but the clinic later is asked to return it, a court could still require repayment, and there could be grounds to push for changes in the terms to better protect victims. He advised that the contract should clearly state that the aid is not moral-damage compensation from those responsible.
During the period surrounding the deal, victims expressed outrage. Alexandra, a mother of several children whose husband died after the procedure, personally contacted a clinic Vice President to voice her concerns and refused to sign. She argued that a life cannot be priced at a million rubles and that the agreement appeared to pressure families into accepting settlement terms under the banner of compensation.
Alexandra described the events surrounding Biderman, the acting chief physician, and recalled conversations that spanned decades, noting that the clinic has operated since 1988. Reports have indicated that non-medical-grade barium was used, and insiders suggested that some staff were aware of issues with the substance’s origin. Alexandra emphasized that concerns about the substance and the handling of the case were not adequately addressed, and she argued that the harm done to victims should be acknowledged more fully.
Prove damage
Some victims allege that the clinic has not apologized and that the agreement was circulated to journalists as a form of voluntary compensation rather than formal remediation. They question the need to prove harm when investigation results already recognize the damage. Victoria, whose mother died from barium poisoning in December 2021, voiced frustration with the process, asking why the center decides who qualifies as a victim rather than relying on formal investigative outcomes. She noted that officials and the clinic have used the promise of city aid to steer outcomes away from litigation in many cases.
Anna shared this sentiment, pointing out that the administration’s involvement is meant to provide psychological and legal support, but so far such support has not materialized. In the meantime, inquiries about the promised additional assistance from the city government have not received a clear response. As of the broadcast, city officials had not replied to requests for comment.
The piece from socialbites.ca remained focused on clarifying the relationships between the clinic’s payments, city funds, and potential court actions, highlighting the ongoing debate over who bears responsibility and how victims can pursue comprehensive redress beyond the initial payouts. This coverage underscores the tension between government promises and the practical steps needed to secure full compensation and justice for those affected.