AstraZeneca Promised to Pay Medical Expenses for Anyone Injured During Its COVID Vaccine Trials — Now It Wants Immunity
AstraZeneca claims it is not obligated to pay medical expenses for a woman injured by its COVID-19 vaccine during a clinical trial because the company is immune from liability under the PREP Act.
AstraZeneca claims it is not obligated to pay medical expenses for a woman injured by its COVID-19 vaccine during a clinical trial because the company is immune from liability under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).
The British-Swedish vaccine maker is asking the court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Brianne Dressen, who alleges the company reneged on its contract which promised to compensate clinical trial participants for injuries they sustained.
Dressen, founder of React19, a nonprofit advocating for vaccine injury victims, filed a breach of contract lawsuit against AstraZenecain federal court in May.
According to the lawsuit, AstraZeneca’s consent form for trial participants stated, “If you become ill or are injured while you are in this research study, you must tell your study doctor straight away. The study doctor will provide medical treatment or refer you for treatment.”
Dressen alleged she suffered injuries and disability as a direct result of her November 2020 vaccination, resulting in prohibitive medical costs — with one medication alone costing $432,000 a year. AstraZeneca offered her only $1,243.30 in compensation, prompting her to file the breach of contract claim.
In its motion to dismiss, AstraZeneca claimed it is fully immune from Dressen’s breach of contract claim under the PREP Act of 2005, which provides a liability shield to COVID-19vaccine manufacturers.
“This action is barred by the PREP Act, which renders AstraZeneca ‘immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered countermeasure,” the motion states.
According to AstraZeneca’s motion, the company did not waive its PREP Act immunity, but if it did, “any waiver would be strictly confined to ‘the costs of medical treatment for research injuries, provided that the costs are reasonable, and you did not cause the injury yourself.’”
AstraZeneca said Dressen’s claim that the company’s COVID-19 vaccine caused her neurological injuries falls outside the scope of such “research injuries.”
“This is a product liability case alleging personal injuries from the administration of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine,” AstraZeneca said, seemingly distinguishing between “research injuries” and “personal injuries.”
AstraZeneca also said Dressen’s lawsuit should not be considered a breach-of-contract claim, but a product liability claim — which would preclude Dressen’s claim “under the Utah Product Liability Act’s two-year statute of limitations.”
Dressen’s opposition to AstraZeneca’s motion to dismiss disputed the product liability claim, stating, “AstraZeneca asks this Court to do what no court has ever done: grant ‘complete immunity’ for contractual violations so long as the violations relate to the administration of covered countermeasures under the PREP Act.”
The document cites precedent exempting breach-of-contract claims from the PREP Act’s immunity provisions. “Each court that has addressed claims of immunity for state contract claims has rightfully held that the PREP Act does not apply.”
Dressen also argued that AstraZeneca waived its immunity “by clearly and unmistakably promising to pay the cost of research injuries.”
In a reply brief filed last week, AstraZeneca repeated its original claims. “Plaintiff’s claims fall squarely within the scope of AstraZeneca’s PREP Act immunity and should be dismissed.”
A hearing on AstraZeneca’s motion to dismiss is scheduled for Oct. 29.
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.
‘PREP Act wasn’t intended to excuse such fraudulent and illicit behavior’
The U.S. never granted emergency use authorization for the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, citing safety concerns.
In its motion to dismiss though, AstraZeneca claimed, “With the protections of the PREP Act in place, AstraZeneca and its partners successfully developed a lifesaving vaccine in a matter of months, an unprecedented scientific achievement.”
Ray Flores, a health freedom rights attorney unconnected to the lawsuit, told The Defenderthat the PREP Act’s liability shield for “covered countermeasures” extends to products being tested during clinical trials — but not in cases where there has been a breach of contract.
“A breach of contract such as this should obviously be excluded since the PREP Act is essentially a product liability protection statute,” Flores said.
He added:
“I’d like to think the PREP Act wasn’t intended to excuse such fraudulent and illicit behavior. But so far, under the guise of a pandemic emergency, the courts have determined that anything goes.
“This is the first PREP challenge that alleges a viable breach of contract. Since AstraZeneca’s guarantee was in writing, it has an excellent chance of winning.”
According to Dressen, two days after Dressen signed the consent form, AstraZeneca amended the form to state that its vaccine may cause “neurological disorders” such as “demyelinating disease,” which could “cause substantial disability” or death “if not treated promptly.”
Within hours of getting her first dose, Dressen experienced tingling in her right arm — a neurological condition known as paresthesia — and blurred vision and vomiting.
In the ensuing weeks, her condition worsened, with the paresthesia spreading to her legs, resulting in disability and multiple diagnoses indicating her symptoms were related to her vaccination.
This included a diagnosis in 2021 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of post-vaccine neuropathy, which NIH neurologists said caused Dressen’s “dysautonomia” and “chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.”
Dressen, who was 39 when she was vaccinated, was previously a preschool teacher but is now unable to work.
In May, AstraZeneca announced the withdrawal of its COVID-19 vaccine globally — though the company said it based its decision on the “surplus of available updated vaccines,” resulting in reduced demand for its vaccine.
The vaccine generated over $5.8 billion in salesglobally, with the help of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which funded and promoted the vaccine in other countries. Several countries later stopped administering the AstraZeneca vaccine due to safety concerns.
In an ongoing class-action lawsuit in the United Kingdom (U.K.) against AstraZeneca, plaintiffs allege that they were injured — or their family members died — after getting the shot.
In documents AstraZeneca submitted to the U.K. High Court earlier this year, the company admitted that its COVID-19 vaccine “can, in very rare cases, cause TTS” — vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, which causes the body to produce life-threatening blood clots.
According to The Telegraph, the U.K.’s Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme has approved 175 applications claiming harm caused by the COVID-19 vaccines, at a set amount of 120,000 pounds (approximately $156,000) per claim, adding that “Around 97 per cent of claims awarded relate to the AstraZeneca jab.”
No comments:
Post a Comment