Accessibility Tools

Skip to main content

Dressen v. AstraZeneca

  • Lawsuit Type: Breach of Contract

Case over breach of contract in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial injury.

A breach of contract case occurs when one party to a contract fails to fulfill their obligations as outlined in the agreement without a legal justification. In simpler terms, it’s when someone doesn’t do what they promised to do in a contract.

Unfortunately, due to the unique nature of the COVID vaccine rollout, a contractual agreement never existed between the pharmaceutical companies and any member of our vaccine-injured community.

However, React19 Co-Chair Brianne Dressen is the rare exception as she entered into a contractual relationship with AstraZeneca prior to participating in its clinical trial. Specifically, the clinic trial consent form promised that AstraZeneca would “cover the costs” if a participant suffered a “research injury,” including but not limited to medical bills. Further, the contract provided that the drug company would provide medical treatment or refer a participant to treatment in the event they suffered a serious adverse reaction like Bri’s. AstraZeneca honored none of its promises and, instead offered Bri an insulting $1,243.30 in exchange for her promise to release all claims against it, and thus, it breached its contractual obligations to Bri. Bri appropriately filed suit against the company for this unconscionable breach of its contractual obligations. The case, Dressen v. AstraZeneca, is currently pending in the United States District Court District of Utah. Again, Siri & Glimstad LLP has stepped up for the injured by representing Bri.

While Bri is the only plaintiff in this lawsuit, it is intended to benefit all of the COVID vaccine-injured. Not only is the case raising awareness of COVID vaccine injury on a global scale, its discovery process is likely to uncover evidence that COVID vaccine clinical trials never adequately supported the “safe and effective” narrative trusted by so many. By debunking the government narrative, the case has the potential to increase the credibility of all those who have asserted vaccine injury claims and to hopefully deter bad behavior on the part of clinical trial sponsors in future trials.