A recent court ruling has dealt a surprising blow to AstraZeneca, the company behind one of the COVID-19 vaccines. On November 4, a U.S. judge decided that a federal law, which usually protects vaccine makers from lawsuits, does not give AstraZeneca a free pass in a particular case. The lawsuit was brought by a woman named Brianne Dressen, who participated in the company’s vaccine trial in 2020 and claimed to have suffered serious side effects.
Here’s where things get interesting: The law, called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, was designed to protect companies that create vaccines during public health emergencies, like the COVID-19 pandemic. It was meant to encourage quick development and distribution of vaccines without the fear of being sued for every negative side effect that might happen.
But Dressen’s case isn’t just about vaccine injuries—it’s about a broken promise.
Dressen, a preschool teacher from Utah, agreed to be part of AstraZeneca’s clinical trial with the understanding that the company would cover the costs of any medical treatment if she got injured. She even signed a consent form that assured her the company would pay for research-related injuries, including medical expenses. However, after she suffered serious side effects from the vaccine, AstraZeneca refused to fully honor this promise, offering her only a small sum—less than $1,250—for treatment.
Dressen took the company to court, arguing that AstraZeneca had breached the contract it made with her, and that it should still be held accountable for breaking its word. AstraZeneca, however, claimed that the law protected them from all lawsuits related to the vaccine, including breach of contract.
But the judge ruled in Dressen’s favor, saying that AstraZeneca can’t escape a breach of contract claim just because it involved a vaccine. The judge explained that the PREP Act was meant to protect vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits over adverse reactions, but it does not cover contractual promises. In other words, even though Dressen can’t sue AstraZeneca over the injury itself, she can sue them for not keeping their promise in the contract.
This is huge because the judge pointed out that the law wasn’t designed to let companies get away with breaking promises just because they are working on vaccines. If that were the case, companies could make false promises to clinical trial participants without any consequences, which could damage public trust and make it harder for companies to find people willing to volunteer for trials.
AstraZeneca argued that if companies were held liable for breaking contracts, it might discourage them from making quick decisions during health emergencies. But the judge disagreed, saying that upholding contracts actually encourages participation in vital clinical trials and ensures trust in the process.
What makes this case even more significant is that AstraZeneca’s vaccine was never approved for use in the U.S. beyond clinical trials, though it was widely used in other countries. Dressen’s case will now move forward, and AstraZeneca will have to answer to the breach of contract claim.
Dressen expressed her satisfaction with the decision, thanking the court for giving her the chance to continue her fight. AstraZeneca, on the other hand, has yet to comment on the ruling, though they maintain that patient safety is their top priority.
This legal battle could have broader implications for future vaccine trials, especially as more companies develop treatments during global health crises. It raises the important question: Can companies be held accountable for breaking their promises, even during an emergency?
Stay tuned as this case progresses—it could have a big impact on how vaccine manufacturers are held accountable in the future.
order-in-astrazeneca-vaccine-injury-case-1