A U.S. federal judge has denied AstraZeneca’s motion to dismiss a case involving a Utah woman injured by the COVID-19 vaccine during clinical trials

Salt Lake City, Utah – In a decision issued on November 4, 2024, Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah denied AstraZeneca’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Brianne Dressen, a Utah woman who alleges she suffered debilitating injuries after participating in a clinical trial for AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine in November 2020.

Dressen’s lawsuit, filed in May 2024, accuses AstraZeneca of breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith. Dressen claims she was assured that AstraZeneca would cover her medical expenses if she experienced adverse effects from the vaccine. According to court documents, Dressen began experiencing symptoms, including numbness, blurred vision, and extreme sensitivity to sound, shortly after receiving the vaccine. These symptoms eventually led to a diagnosis of post-vaccine neuropathy by the National Institutes of Health, leaving her unable to work or engage in daily activities without significant impairment.

AstraZeneca sought dismissal, arguing that Dressen’s claims were barred by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which provides broad liability protections to entities involved in developing countermeasures during public health emergencies, including COVID-19 vaccines. AstraZeneca argued that the PREP Act shields it from liability, citing federal immunity protections for manufacturers of medical countermeasures during health crises.

However, Judge Shelby ruled that the PREP Act’s immunity provisions did not apply to Dressen’s claims. He noted that the PREP Act typically immunizes entities from liability only in cases directly related to injuries caused by the administration or use of a countermeasure, whereas Dressen’s claims were rooted in breach of contract. The judge emphasized that while the PREP Act aims to shield manufacturers from certain liabilities, it does not extend to breach of contract claims, which are based on the non-performance of an agreed obligation rather than on the vaccine’s administration itself.

Judge Shelby further dismissed AstraZeneca’s argument that the Utah Product Liability Act’s statute of limitations should bar Dressen’s claims, clarifying that Dressen’s allegations pertain to the company’s alleged failure to uphold promises made during the trial rather than to a defective product claim. Additionally, Dressen’s claim that AstraZeneca delayed or withheld promised payments for her medical expenses established sufficient grounds for breach of the duty of good faith.

The ruling allows Dressen’s case to proceed in federal court, where she seeks compensation for her extensive medical costs and other related damages. While the decision does not address AstraZeneca’s potential liability, it underscores a significant legal precedent regarding the limits of the PREP Act’s immunity in cases of contractual obligations within the scope of clinical trials.