An anesthesiologist and intensive care specialist at a private medical center in Astana was reinstated only after a court battle, reports infohub.kz.
According to the capital’s court press service, in September 2025 two colleagues complained about the doctor’s behavior, citing a breach of business ethics. After requesting a written explanation and hearing her side, the employer issued a reprimand. In addition, the doctor was accused of violating the procedure for obtaining informed consent for anesthesia: the consent of the child’s legal representatives was obtained only on the day of the surgery.
The appellate panel reviewed the medical center’s internal rules and concluded that the doctor should have obtained consent the day before the operation and then again immediately before administering anesthesia. Therefore, the court upheld the first reprimand but only on the grounds of untimely informed consent. The allegations of breaching business ethics were not confirmed, as the employer relied on employee statements, but complaints alone were deemed insufficient. Surveillance cameras were installed in the center, but the court was not provided with recordings confirming conflicts, and no other objective evidence was presented. The appellate court noted that disciplinary action cannot be based solely on the words of individual employees; the circumstances must be fully, objectively, and comprehensively verified.
A few months later, the department head submitted a new memo describing the doctor as confrontational, overly emotional, and prone to arguments with colleagues, creating a tense atmosphere in the team. The employer considered this a repeat offense and imposed the harshest penalty — termination of the employment contract. However, the memos contained only general assessments of the doctor’s behavior, with no precise description of a proven disciplinary violation.
In the end, the appellate court sided with the doctor. The judicial panel specifically noted that an employee’s active stance in addressing shortcomings in work organization cannot automatically be considered a breach of business ethics. Frankness, emotionality, and inconvenience for management do not in themselves justify depriving a person of their job. The appellate court overturned the first-instance decision: the orders imposing a second disciplinary penalty and dismissing the doctor were declared unlawful, and the doctor was reinstated as an anesthesiologist and intensive care specialist. The medical center was ordered to pay back wages for the period of forced absence, compensation for moral damages, and legal fees.