A two-decade legal battle

Jerzy Ziobro was admitted to the University Hospital in Kraków on 22 June 2006 with symptoms of advanced coronary artery disease. He underwent two coronary angiography procedures and the implantation of four stents. On 1 July his condition deteriorated, and he died the following day. The family immediately suspected medical error, but prosecutors twice discontinued the investigation, concluding the treatment was correct. In 2011 the family filed a private indictment, launching a legal marathon that would span nearly 20 years.

After an initial discontinuation in 2012 and a series of appeals that reached the Supreme Court, the case returned to the first instance. In 2016 the public prosecutor joined the accusers, and the trial proceeded from a public indictment. The District Court for Kraków-Śródmieście acquitted all four doctors in 2017, ruling there was no direct link between their actions and the patient's death. The accusers appealed, and the appellate trial began in 2018 at the Kraków District Court.

The court's decision

On Thursday, 23 July 2026, the Kraków District Court delivered its final ruling. It upheld the acquittal of Prof. Jacek D., the former head of the II Department of Cardiology Clinic; duty doctor Katarzyna S.; and ward head of the monitored room Andrzej K. For the fourth physician, Dariusz D., a former department doctor and deputy head of the Hemodynamics Lab, the court overturned the acquittal but simultaneously discontinued proceedings because the statute of limitations had expired.

The verdict is final and not subject to ordinary appeal, though a cassation remains possible. Both the defence and the prosecution had sought acquittal. The prosecutor, who initially opposed the doctors, changed position during the evidentiary proceedings, concluding that it was impossible to determine unequivocally whether medical errors had occurred.

The Lausanne opinion

A pivotal moment came in 2022 when the court requested a supplementary opinion from experts at the University Centre of Forensic Medicine in Lausanne. The opinion arrived after roughly four years, and the trial resumed in June 2026. The Swiss experts assessed that, according to global guidelines, bypass surgery would have been a more beneficial choice for the patient than the coronary angioplasty with stents selected by the Kraków doctors. However, they stressed that the choice of treatment belongs to the physician and noted that bypass surgery carried a high risk of bleeding due to the patient's ongoing therapy, a factor that may have influenced the decision to implant stents.

Family reaction and next steps

The widow's attorney had argued for the acquittal to be overturned and the case sent back for retrial, claiming the original expert witnesses were biased and the court lacked impartiality. The court rejected these arguments. Krystyna Kornicka-Ziobro, the widow and mother of Zbigniew Ziobro, issued a statement on 13 July, saying:

“My husband was a doctor. I also practised this wonderful profession. We both knew that medicine does not always guarantee a cure. But medicine has its standards. A doctor has a duty of care. Medical records must be reliable. An expert opinion must be clear, complete and free of doubt. And a court that adjudicates a patient's death must have the courage to look not at titles, functions and authority, but at the facts.”

With the ruling now final, the only remaining legal avenue is a cassation appeal. The decision closes one of Poland's most closely watched medical-legal cases, which has repeatedly returned to the courtroom and divided public opinion for two decades.