Maradona death trial: Expert witness defends Agustina Cosachov's psychiatric treatment

The trial over the death of Diego Armando Maradona delivered a significant testimony on Thursday for the defense of Agustina Cosachov. Psychiatrist and forensic physician Aníbal Areco, an expert called by the accused professional, told the court that the psychiatric medication prescribed to the Argentine legend was appropriate and that his lab values were normal when he left the clinic, less than a month before his death.

• Aníbal Areco testified that Maradona's psychiatric medication was appropriate and within a non-toxic therapeutic range.
• He said the treatment was supervised by clinic doctors and Swiss Medical consultants.
• He pointed out that Maradona had normal lab values at discharge and therefore left without cardiac medication.
• He argued that Cosachov's responsibility was limited to psychiatric and pharmacological treatment.
• The expert submitted a dissenting report to the medical panel that called the care inadequate, deficient and reckless.

A dissenting expert from the medical panel that reviewed Maradona's death

Areco was part of the medical panel that analyzed the circumstances of Maradona's death in 2021 at the request of the justice system, called by Cosachov herself. Although his conclusions did not align with those of the group, which considered the health professionals' actions inadequate, deficient and reckless, the specialist highlighted that there was agreement on one central point of the case.

A consensus was reached that the pharmacological indication was appropriate and that it was carried out within a therapeutic range that does not produce toxicity.

That position proved key to Cosachov's defense strategy. The accused psychiatrist faces charges over her role in the former footballer's care during the final period of his life. The witness explained that, in standard psychiatric practice, the drugs used in this case do not require routine cardiac or laboratory monitoring.

What treatment Diego Maradona received before his death

The expert detailed that the pharmacological treatment was supervised both by doctors at the clinic where Maradona underwent surgery and by consultants from Swiss Medical, the private healthcare company that owns that facility. After accessing the complete case file and Maradona's medical records at that institution, Areco was firm about the professional coordination that existed.

Everyone agreed that the treatment was appropriate.

The specialist also recalled that during Maradona's hospitalization at the clinic, the patient was monitored with multiparametric checks and showed lab results within normal values. According to his testimony, that data supported the decision to discharge him without cardiac medication in mid-November 2020 to continue his recovery under home care.

The limits of Agustina Cosachov's responsibility

Another focus of Areco's testimony was defining the scope of Cosachov's work within the team treating Maradona. According to the witness, the psychiatrist's responsibility covered psychiatric and pharmacological treatment, while general clinical care remained in the hands of the private healthcare company that coordinated home care.

The expert described how the care structure worked at the home where Maradona spent his final weeks. He noted that there was a team of professionals and nurses coordinated by a Swiss Medical physician, and that the team communicated through a chat. That information emerged from reading the conversations and the company's medical records, he explained during his testimony before the judges.

Why this testimony matters in the Maradona death trial

The trial over the death of Diego Maradona, who passed away on November 25, 2020, at age 60 in a house in the Buenos Aires suburb of Tigre, has several health professionals as defendants. The case seeks to determine whether there was abandonment or negligence in the care of the 1986 World Cup champion, who had undergone surgery for a subdural hematoma earlier that month.

Areco's testimony introduces a technical perspective that contradicts part of the accusations, arguing that the checks demanded by other psychiatric experts are not common in everyday medical practice. Meanwhile, hearings will continue in the coming days with new testimonies seeking to clarify the responsibilities of each defendant.