In the process of suspected corona vaccination damage, the Higher Regional Court (OLG) in Bamberg raised doubts as to whether the defendant manufacturer Astra Zeneca had provided sufficient information about side effects. The Senate is currently assuming that the plaintiff would not have been vaccinated with the Astra Zeneca vaccine if the risk of intestinal vein thrombosis had been presented in the manufacturer’s technical information, the court said. The Chamber would like to obtain an expert opinion. This is intended to clarify the question of “whether a representation in the technical information was required based on the scientific status at the time.”
On the other hand, the court does not see sufficient evidence for the defendant to be liable for “unacceptable harmful effects” of the vaccine, as the court writes in a statement. For this it would be necessary that after the approval of the vaccine on October 31, 2022, new findings would have arisen that would have stood in the way of approval. However, “the side effects cited by the plaintiff” were already known at the time of approval and were taken into account during this process.
A 33-year-old woman from Upper Franconia is suing the vaccine manufacturer for damages. In March 2021, she was vaccinated with the British-Swedish company’s Vaxzevria Covid-19 vaccine and then suffered what is known as intestinal vein thrombosis. She went into a coma and eventually had to have part of her intestines removed. The woman’s lawyer described the court’s decision as a stage victory. The decision also sends a signal to other proceedings that courts cannot decide on this topic without an expert opinion.
The Hof district court had previously dismissed the woman’s lawsuit because it could find neither a product error nor an information error in connection with the vaccine. The woman appealed against this. From Astra Zeneca she demands at least 250,000 euros in damages and 17,200 euros for loss of earnings and up to 600,000 euros for future impairments. The lawyers at Astra Zeneca have so far ruled out a settlement, i.e. an out-of-court settlement, with the plaintiff, referring to the decision of the first instance.