Maradona Case: Psychiatrist Agustina Cosachov shifts blame to insurance coordinator in tense trial session

New evidence in the ongoing legal battle reveals a breakdown in communication regarding the football legend's home care arrangements.

The courtroom atmosphere grew heavy this week as the trial surrounding the muerte of Diego Maradona took a combative turn. Psychiatrist Agustina Cosachov returned to the stand, once again pointing contra Nancy Forlini, the coordinator for the medical insurance provider (the prepaga). The central friction point? A series of digital messages that suggest a dangerous disconnect between the medical team’s expectations and the insurance company’s actual responsibilities during the icon's final days at home.

Cosachov presented chat logs to the court, aiming to prove that Forlini failed to communicate clearly that the insurance provider would not take full charge of Maradona’s home health management. According to the psychiatrist, the pedido for care was misinterpreted or ignored until it was too late to rectify the oversight. The psiquiatra claims she only realized the extent of the insurance firm's refusal to provide comprehensive care after reviewing the discharge documents with fellow defendant and psychologist, Carlos Díaz.

During her testimony, Agustina was firm, stating, "I want to emphasize the request for a clinical physician and an ambulance in accordance with current legislation." She clarified that her initial requirements did not include therapeutic companions because she did not deem them indispensable at that specific juncture. The defense strategy from the psychiatrist seems clear: shift the narrative from professional negligence to a systemic failure by the insurance provider to honor requests for specific medical resources.

A collision of accounts

The trial has become a battleground of conflicting testimonies. While Cosachov spent her time on the stand directing fire toward the prepaga, the court also heard from Mariano Perroni, the head of nursing. Perroni took the opportunity to firmly deny allegations that nursing logs were manipulated or falsified in the aftermath of the tragedy.

This back-and-forth illustrates the chaotic nature of the patient’s final care plan. Forlini maintains that the clinical treatment remained the sole responsibility of the attending medical team, not the insurance coordinator. This leaves the court to untangle who was responsible for the gaps in supervision that ultimately proved fatal.

The bigger picture

Why this matters: This trial has moved beyond the simple question of medical error and into the murkier waters of administrative accountability. By exposing these behind-the-scenes communications, the defense teams are highlighting the fractured nature of home-based high-risk care. When roles between insurance coordinators, primary doctors, and support staff are not clearly codified, the patient is the one who pays the price. The proceedings are revealing that the "care" provided was likely a patchwork of misunderstood orders, rather than a cohesive medical strategy.