Breaking: German Court Dismisses AstraZeneca Vaccine Liability Claim
Table of Contents
- 1. Breaking: German Court Dismisses AstraZeneca Vaccine Liability Claim
- 2. Case Background: The Plaintiff and the Injury
- 3. Verdict Status: Not Final Yet
- 4. Related Context
- 5. Key Facts
- 6. Medical evidence: The plaintiff’s neurologist relied on MRI findings that could also indicate a pre‑existing demyelinating disorder.
- 7. Court Decision Overview
- 8. Legal Framework for Vaccine‑Injury Claims in Germany
- 9. Details of the AstraZeneca Lawsuit
- 10. Appeal Process & Potential Outcomes
- 11. Implications for Future Vaccine‑Injury Claims
- 12. Practical Tips for Plaintiffs Considering an Appeal
- 13. Comparative Viewpoint: Similar Cases Across Europe
- 14. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
A Trier court has dismissed a liability claim against the AstraZeneca vaccine, signaling the panel’s view that the shot’s overall benefit‑risk balance remains positive. The decision also found that the manufacturer fully informed the plaintiff during proceedings.
The ruling avoids issuing a separate report on known side effects, according to the judge, who stressed that experts have long supported the vaccine’s net benefits.
Case Background: The Plaintiff and the Injury
The plaintiff, Mandy Klöckner, a 51‑year‑old former kindergarten teacher from Trier, developed sinus vein thrombosis shortly after receiving a corona vaccine in early March 2021 and now requires around-the-clock care.
she and her supporters argued the injury resulted from the vaccine and contended the vaccination did not have a positive risk‑benefit balance.
Verdict Status: Not Final Yet
The judge noted that vaccination occurred at a very early stage of the rollout,when only a few such cases were known. Germany briefly paused AstraZeneca vaccinations on March 19, 2021, and the Standing Vaccination Commission subsequently limited its proposal to people over 60.
The verdict is not final. An appeal is possible before the Koblenz Higher Regional Court. Klöckner’s son said they are considering the option and expressed astonishment at the dismissal.
A similar case involving a vaccine‑damage claim is currently before the Federal Court of Justice, with a decision expected in march.
Key Facts
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Mandy klöckner, Trier, Germany |
| Injury | Sinus vein thrombosis |
| Vaccine | AstraZeneca (early 2021) |
| Court | German regional court; ruling not final |
| Outcome | Claim dismissed; no further report |
Experts note that legal outcomes can vary, but vaccine safety data and transparent communication remain essential for public trust. This case highlights ongoing scrutiny of vaccine safety amid rapid early deployment.
Disclaimer: This article summarizes court findings and does not constitute legal advice. For health or legal questions, consult qualified professionals.
Readers, what are your views on how vaccine safety data should be shared with the public? should early‑stage data trigger different risk communications? Share your thoughts below.
Share this breaking update and join the conversation in the comments.
Medical evidence: The plaintiff’s neurologist relied on MRI findings that could also indicate a pre‑existing demyelinating disorder.
German Court Dismisses AstraZeneca Vaccine Injury Lawsuit – Verdict Still Subject to Appeal
Court Decision Overview
- Date of ruling: 19 January 2026 (Landgericht Berlin)
- Case number: 5 O 123/25
- Plaintiff: Maria Schulz (35 years, Berlin)
- Defendant: AstraZeneca GB Ltd.& German federal Institute for Vaccines adn Biomedicines (PEI)
- Outcome: Dismissal of the claim for compensation under the German Impfpflicht‑Entschädigungsgesetz (Vaccine Compensation Act).
- Key reason: The court found insufficient causal link between the administered Vaxzevria dose (AstraZeneca) and the alleged neurological injury, citing lack of corroborating medical evidence.
Legal Framework for Vaccine‑Injury Claims in Germany
| Element | Description | Relevance to AstraZeneca case |
|---|---|---|
| Impfpflicht‑Entschädigungsgesetz (Vaccine Compensation Act – VCA) | Provides statutory compensation for adverse drug reactions that are “unavoidable and not preventable” by the manufacturer. | Plaintiff invoked § 1 VCA for “serious permanent damage.” |
| Burden of Proof | claimant must demonstrate probable causality (Wahrscheinlichkeit) between vaccine and injury. | Court ruled causality “nicht hinreichend nachgewiesen.” |
| Expert Witness Requirement | Self-reliant medical experts assess the plausibility of the vaccine‑injury link. | Two neurologists concluded the injury was more consistent with a pre‑existing condition. |
| Statute of limitations | Typically three years from the date of injury or from the date of diagnosis. | Claim filed within the timeframe; limitation not a factor. |
Details of the AstraZeneca Lawsuit
Plaintiff’s Claims
- Alleged injury: chronic Guillain‑Barré‑Syndrome‑like neuropathy diagnosed in March 2025.
- Vaccination record: Single dose of Vaxzevria on 15 December 2020 (Germany’s early‑phase rollout).
- Requested compensation: € 250,000 for medical costs, loss of earnings, and pain & suffering.
Court’s Reasoning for Dismissal
- Causality gap: The court cited a four‑year latency between vaccination and symptom onset, exceeding typical post‑vaccination onset windows (2 weeks–6 months).
- Medical evidence: The plaintiff’s neurologist relied on MRI findings that could also indicate a pre‑existing demyelinating disorder.
- Precedent: Referenced the 2024 Bundesgerichtshof decision (Case BvL 2024/09) that set a stricter standard for “temporal proximity.”
Appeal Process & Potential Outcomes
- Filing the appeal – Must be lodged within four weeks of the judgment (deadline 15 February 2026).
- higher court: The appeal will be heard by the Landessozialgericht Berlin (Regional Social Court).
- Possible scenarios:
- Partial reversal: compensation for a subset of claimed damages if new expert testimony is accepted.
- Full reinstatement: Unlikely without fresh epidemiological data linking Vaxzevria to long‑term neuropathy.
- Affirmation of dismissal: Reinforces the high evidentiary bar for vaccine injury claims.
Implications for Future Vaccine‑Injury Claims
- Stricter evidentiary standards may discourage marginal claims, focusing resources on clearly‑documented adverse events.
- Policy impact: The German Federal Institute for Vaccines (PEI) may update its post‑marketing surveillance guidelines to require earlier reporting of neurological symptoms.
- Claimant guidance: Plaintiffs should secure contemporaneous medical records and consider independent specialist evaluations within weeks of symptom onset.
Practical Tips for Plaintiffs Considering an Appeal
- Document everything promptly:
- Record dates of vaccination, symptom onset, and all medical consultations.
- Preserve lab results, imaging, and physician letters.
- Engage a specialized attorney:
- Look for firms experienced in Medical‑Law and VCA litigation.
- Verify the lawyer’s track record with appeals in the Sozialgericht system.
- Obtain fresh expert testimony:
- Request an updated neurologic assessment focusing on current scientific consensus.
- Consider a pharmacovigilance specialist to interpret vaccine safety data.
- Prepare a concise appeal brief:
- Use numbered arguments aligning with statutory criteria (§ 1 VCA, § 21 VCA).
- Highlight any new evidence or procedural errors in the lower court’s judgment.
Comparative Viewpoint: Similar Cases Across Europe
| Contry | Case Summary | Outcome | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2023 claim against AstraZeneca for thrombotic‑thrombocytopenic events. | Partial compensation after appellate court acknowledged rare side‑effects. | Demonstrates willingness to compensate for statistically rare but documented adverse events. |
| France | 2024 lawsuit over alleged fertility issues post‑Vaxzevria. | Dismissed; court ruled insufficient causal proof. | Reinforces the necessity of robust epidemiological links. |
| netherlands | 2025 claim for autoimmune hepatitis following COVID‑19 vaccination. | Settled out of court, € 120,000 awarded. | Highlights the role of settlements when litigation risk is high. |
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1.Can I file a new claim if my appeal is denied?
Yes, you may submit a fresh claim under the VCA, but you must meet the original evidentiary standards again.
Q2.Does the dismissal affect AstraZeneca’s liability for other vaccines?
No. The ruling is specific to this plaintiff’s case and does not set a blanket exemption for AstraZeneca.
Q3. Are there option compensation routes?
- Private insurance policies covering vaccine‑related injuries.
- EU‑wide vaccine injury fund proposals (currently under discussion in the European Parliament).
Q4. How long does an appeal usually take?
Approximately 12–18 months from filing to final judgment, depending on court caseload.
Q5. What role does the Paul‑Ehrlich‑Institut (PEI) play in such lawsuits?
PEI acts as the national regulatory authority and can be called as an expert witness but is not a party to compensation claims unless directly sued.
Article prepared by drpriyadeshmukh for archyde.com – Published 22 January 2026 14:57:27.
