Maradona’s doctor was made ‘scapegoat’ for his death, court told

Leopoldo Luque is accused of potential medical negligence connected to Diego Maradona’s death in November 2020. Prosecutors portray him as a key decision-maker who did not respond properly during Maradona’s two-week convalescence after surgery. Their case focuses on whether his conduct helped cause the fatal outcome.

During closing arguments, prosecutors condemned Luque’s alleged “inaction.” They said his attitude was “always to do nothing” despite warning signs Maradona was exhibiting. Luque’s lawyers reject that account and argue that he has been made a scapegoat because he had the most contact with Maradona.

The legal issue remains contested. The defence says Maradona suffered an acute, unpredictable heart attack that could not have been foreseen. Prosecutors are seeking a 12-year sentence for Luque, while the court considers the evidence from the medical commission, autopsy, tests and trial testimony.

Calling someone a “scapegoat” means saying that person is being blamed unfairly for a failure or tragedy involving broader circumstances. The word suggests that responsibility has been placed on one individual even though the evidence may not justify doing so. It is a defence argument, not a court finding.

Luque’s lawyer Roberto Rallin said the defence was there to proclaim Luque’s innocence “with the evidence.” He argued that Luque had been made the scapegoat. Another defence lawyer, Francisco Oneto, said Maradona’s death came from an acute and unpredictable heart attack, with no possibility of predicting the fatal outcome.

The defence’s use of the word matters because Luque had the most contact with Maradona and was seen as a key decision-maker. Prosecutors instead focus on his alleged inaction. The court must weigh whether that criticism is supported by medical and trial evidence.

Seven healthcare professionals have been on trial since April over potential negligence linked to Diego Maradona’s death. The case examines medical care during the two weeks he spent recovering after surgery for a subdural haematoma. It matters because the court is assessing whether professional decisions or failures contributed to his fatal condition.

Prosecutors have requested prison sentences for six of the seven defendants. Their requested terms range from four years to 12 years. Luque, described as a neurosurgeon and a key decision-maker for Maradona, faces the highest requested sentence: 12 years in prison.

The article does not identify the requested sentence for each defendant. It also does not say that any defendant has been convicted. Defence closing arguments were expected to finish during the week of the report, after which the court will consider the competing accounts and evidence.

Prosecutors said Luque failed to act on warning signs that Maradona was exhibiting during recovery. They condemned what they described as his “inaction” and argued that he repeatedly did nothing in response to the developing situation. The article does not list the specific warning signs.

Luque’s lawyers challenge that interpretation. They say clinical tests performed before Maradona’s surgery did not reveal heart problems. Francisco Oneto argued that Maradona had no heart problems in 2020 and that the death resulted from an acute, unpredictable heart attack.

This creates a direct conflict over what the medical evidence showed and what Luque should have understood at the time. The court will consider the pre-surgery tests alongside the autopsy, other tests and the interdisciplinary medical commission’s conclusions. That commission said Maradona had a history of heart problems that should have been considered.

Whether Maradona’s death was foreseeable matters because negligence cases generally ask whether a healthcare professional should have anticipated a serious risk and taken reasonable steps. If the danger was apparent, failing to respond may support a finding that conduct contributed to the death. If the fatal event was truly unpredictable, that argument becomes much harder to establish.

Prosecutors say Luque ignored warning signs and that his inaction mattered. The defence answers that Maradona suffered an acute, unpredictable heart attack and that there was “absolutely no possibility” of predicting the fatal outcome. Lawyers also point to clinical tests before surgery that they say revealed no heart problems.

The article does not state the court’s legal test or outcome. It shows that the dispute turns on medical evidence, including the autopsy and commission findings. The commission said Maradona had a heart-problem history that should have been taken into account.

A subdural haematoma is a collection of blood between the brain’s coverings, often requiring medical treatment or surgery. Pulmonary edema means fluid builds up in the lungs, making breathing difficult. These definitions use established medical knowledge; the article itself names both conditions but does not explain them.

Maradona underwent surgery for a subdural haematoma shortly before entering a residence in Tigre for convalescence. He spent about two weeks recovering there. He was later found dead in bed, and the article reports that his death resulted from a cardiorespiratory crisis coupled with pulmonary edema.

The conditions therefore appear at different points in the reported sequence. The haematoma led to surgery and recovery care, while pulmonary edema was part of the fatal medical crisis. The article does not say that the surgery directly caused the edema. That connection is central to the broader dispute over medical responsibility.

Courts generally separate timing from legal causation. A healthcare professional may have treated a patient before death without legally causing it. Judges usually ask what duty existed, whether the professional breached the required standard, whether that breach materially contributed to the death, and whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable. The exact rules depend on the jurisdiction, which the article does not detail.

Evidence can include medical records, clinical tests, expert opinions, autopsy results and witness testimony. In this case, an interdisciplinary medical commission reviewed the autopsy and other tests. It said Maradona’s heart history should have been considered, while Luque’s lawyers relied on pre-surgery tests that they said showed no heart problems.

The court must compare those findings with prosecutors’ claims about warning signs and inaction. It must also consider the defence claim that an acute, unpredictable heart attack caused the death. Only a proven link between conduct and outcome would support negligence liability.