By Editorial Staff
Updated: September 22, 2026 – 15:49
The legal proceedings surrounding the death of football icon Diego Armando Maradona have taken an unexpected and controversial turn. In a session at the San Isidro courts that lasted well into the afternoon, official court expert Pablo Ferrari introduced a medical hypothesis that has sent shockwaves through the ongoing trial: the possibility that Maradona may have succumbed to COVID-19, a factor that was never formally assessed at the time of his passing on November 25, 2020.
This revelation, delivered at the conclusion of 43 grueling hearings and the testimony of 76 witnesses, marks a pivotal shift in a trial that has spent years attempting to untangle the medical negligence allegedly leading to the death of the Argentine legend.
The COVID-19 Omission: A Methodological Failure?
During his testimony, Pablo Ferrari did not mince words regarding the forensic handling of the case. He identified the failure to perform a post-mortem swab for COVID-19 as a significant "methodological error."
Given that Maradona passed away during the height of the global pandemic—a period when diagnostic testing for the virus was standard protocol in hospitals and for unexpected deaths—Ferrari argued that the absence of this data leaves an irreparable gap in the medical timeline. By failing to rule out the virus, the medical team and forensic examiners may have overlooked a critical systemic factor that could have exacerbated the athlete’s pre-existing heart condition.
"It is impossible to definitively rule out that he died as a result of COVID-19," Ferrari stated before the tribunal. This assertion, while speculative in the eyes of the prosecution, provides a new anchor for the defense teams, who are fighting against the charge of "homicide with eventual intent."
A Divergence of Medical Opinion
The trial has been characterized by a battle of experts, and Ferrari’s testimony stands in stark contrast to the prevailing theories presented by other official experts earlier in the proceedings.
For years, the consensus among the prosecution’s medical team has been that Maradona’s death was the result of a protracted agony. Their reports suggested that the football star suffered for approximately 12 hours before his heart finally failed. This "prolonged suffering" theory is central to the prosecution’s case, as it implies that had there been proper medical supervision and intervention during those hours, the tragedy could have been averted.
However, Ferrari presented a conflicting narrative. Based on a study requested in 2025 by neurosurgeon Leopoldo Luque—the primary defendant in the case—Ferrari argued that the accumulation of liquid in Maradona’s lungs occurred within a much shorter, more acute window. He posits that the cardiac arrest was sudden and catastrophic, leaving little room for external intervention to alter the outcome. This divergence in timing is not merely academic; it is the difference between a foreseeable death due to neglect and an unavoidable medical event.
The Chronology of a High-Stakes Trial
To understand the weight of these latest testimonies, one must look at the timeline of the legal struggle that has unfolded since November 2020:
- November 2020: Diego Armando Maradona dies at age 60 at his home in Tigre, Buenos Aires.
- Early 2021: An investigation is launched to determine if medical malpractice played a role in his passing.
- 2021-2024: Extensive forensic analysis and depositions are conducted, focusing on the quality of home care provided to the patient.
- 2025: Leopoldo Luque requests an independent forensic review, which eventually leads to the involvement of expert Pablo Ferrari.
- September 2026: After 43 hearings and 76 witnesses, the trial reaches its closing stages, culminating in Ferrari’s controversial testimony.
The investigation has consistently focused on seven health professionals—including doctors, nurses, and a psychologist—who were responsible for the home care of the Argentine idol. They face charges of "homicide simple with eventual intent," a serious crime under the Argentine penal code that suggests the defendants knew their actions (or lack thereof) could lead to death but acted with indifference to that outcome.
The Defendants: Seeking Accountability
The seven individuals currently in the dock are at the center of a national debate regarding the standard of care owed to public figures and patients with complex medical histories.
- Leopoldo Luque (Neurosurgeon): As the primary physician in charge, his defense has been the most vocal in challenging the prosecution’s timeline.
- Agustina Cosachov (Psychiatrist): Implicated in the management of the patient’s pharmacological treatment.
- Ricardo Almirón (Nurse): Part of the team present in the final days.
- Dahiana Madrid (Nurse): Also present during the care shift.
- Mariano Perroni (Nursing Coordinator): Accused of organizational failures.
- Nancy Forlini (Medical Coordinator): Responsible for the medical insurance oversight.
- Carlos Díaz (Psychologist): Involved in the patient’s mental health care.
Each of these individuals has maintained their innocence, arguing that they provided the best care possible given the patient’s autonomy and his refusal to adhere to more rigid medical protocols.
The Implications of the "Sudden Death" Theory
The introduction of the "sudden death" theory, supported by the possibility of an undetected COVID-19 infection, serves as a powerful defense strategy. If the defense can convince the court that the process of death was rapid and arguably inevitable due to a sudden pulmonary event (potentially viral in nature), the argument for "homicide" loses its critical component: the ability to have prevented the death through timely intervention.
If the death occurred in minutes rather than over a 12-hour period, the negligence of the medical team becomes harder to link directly to the cause of death. This is why the testimony of Pablo Ferrari is being viewed by legal observers as a potential turning point for the defendants.
Looking Ahead: The Final Verdict
As the trial nears its conclusion, the atmosphere in the San Isidro courts is thick with anticipation. The tribunal has scheduled the next hearing for September 29, 2026. This session will be crucial, as it allows the seven defendants the opportunity to provide final, expanded statements in their own defense before the court moves to the next phase.
Legal analysts expect the phase of closing arguments (the alegatos) to commence on October 6. The prosecution will attempt to synthesize the mountain of evidence, expert testimonies, and the timeline of care to prove that the defendants acted with a reckless disregard for human life. Conversely, the defense teams are expected to lean heavily on the testimonies of experts like Ferrari to introduce reasonable doubt, arguing that the medical situation was far more complex and sudden than the prosecution alleges.
The judgment is expected to be delivered toward the end of October 2026. Regardless of the verdict, the trial of Diego Maradona has already cemented itself as one of the most significant medical-legal cases in the history of Argentina, forcing a national conversation about the responsibilities of healthcare professionals and the tragic, premature loss of an individual who represented the spirit of a nation.
This report was compiled and edited with the assistance of artificial intelligence based on primary information provided by EFE and court records from the San Isidro proceedings.
