A vaccine manufacturer only assumes liability if the overall side effects of the vaccine are greater than the benefits of the drug. This is called a “negative benefit-risk profile,” explains the lawyer. It is a high hurdle because courts usually refer to the approval processes in which drugs and vaccines have to pass such benefit-risk assessments.
The second condition for liability is met if the medication package leaflet does not adequately point out possible consequential damage. However, one would have to have access to the approval procedures in order to be able to compare them with the information in the package inserts. Therefore, one would first have to sue for publication or inspection. Böttger comes to the conclusion that the chances of success are currently very low.
Typically, it is difficult to prove the causal relationship between the AstraZeneca vaccine and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) because there are no studies to suggest this.
Admission: However, this situation could change with AstraZeneca’s admission. According to a recently released court document, the pharmaceutical company admitted that the Vaccine can cause TTS in very rare cases. This concession could help those affected, as Astrazeneca would not have made such a statement if there were no relevant studies.
That means: However, it is important to note that the chances of success of a lawsuit always depend on the individual case, but Astrazeneca’s admission certainly increases the chances for those who were vaccinated with the vaccine and experienced this side effect.
This is what the lawyer says: The lawyer recommends that those affected check claims and, if necessary, assert them. He still believes that the chances of success of a lawsuit for side effects after vaccination with other vaccines are low.
Who has to pay in the end: It is important to know that in the event of a successful lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company like Astrazeneca, it is not the company itself that bears the costs, but rather the state or taxpayer. This was agreed during the procurement of the vaccines by the EU states in order to protect the manufacturers from lawsuits due to vaccine damage. According to the law, compensation and legal costs in such cases are borne by the EU member states.
However, according to a report by the European Court of Auditors, there are exceptions to this rule. These only apply if the damage was caused “intentionally, through gross negligence or non-compliance with good manufacturing practices applicable in the EU”.
