We are following an American case between AstraZeneca and Brianne Dressen; a Covid-19 vaccine trial participant who suffered significant injuries as a direct result of the trial drug.

Within an hour of her first injection, and throughout the following months Dressen experienced advancing paresthesia, blurred vision, tinnitus, nausea and a host of other symptoms; each determined to be the result of an increased immune response to the vaccine.

After months of attempting to hold AstraZeneca to task for the costs of her treatments, the decision was made to file a lawsuit.

Dressen initiated this lawsuit against both Velocity (later released from the lawsuit in August) and AstraZeneca on May 13, 2024, bringing claims for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

AstraZeneca responded with a Motion to Dismiss on June 28, 2024, on the basis of assumed protections afforded them under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).

AstraZeneca’s primary argument focused on Dressen’s claims being barred by the PREP Act which “limits the liability of certain covered entities during public health emergencies.”

The courts disagreed, finding “the text of the PREP Act exempts contractual violations from its scope of immunity, stating it requires a causal link between the claim and a tangible medical countermeasure, while breach of contract claims arise from one party’s failure to perform a legal obligation without regard to any countermeasure.” Additionally, “Dressen properly stated a claim for breach of the duty of good faith because the duty is inherent in all contracts, and Dressen pleaded sufficient facts to state a plausible claim on this basis.”

In closing the judgement states, “Accepting as true Dressen’s allegations set forth in the Complaint, she has plausibly pleaded facts sufficient to show AstraZeneca “intentionally or purposely. . . destroy[ed] or injure[d] [Dressen’s] right to receive the fruits of the contract.” The court reserves judgment on whether the ICF (informed consent form) should be construed as an insurance contract because Dressen has plausibly satisfied the general standard for breach of the Implied Duty of Good Faith, and any future characterization of the ICF’s genre of contract will be assessed after further briefing as it relates to the type and extent of damages available to Dressen.

In summary, AstraZeneca’s Motion to Dismiss has been denied, and the case will proceed.

This is a huge win in a case that still has a long way to go. We eagerly look forward to sharing more positive news as her case proceeds.

Layer by layer we are seeing an erosion of the supposed protections that these medical conglomerates so eagerly hide behind, peeled back by the members of our justice systems who still hold true to their values and to their duties to the people.

Often our judicial system in Canada mimics that of the US, acting on those precedents that are likewise supported by our laws and approach to governance. With our system currently buried under a backlog, we do well to keep watch on the progress of similar cases to our south.

To read the United States District Court of Utah decision, click here