Case Explained: Dressen v. AstraZeneca AB, et al.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-23 Docket: 2:24-CV-00337-RJS-CMR) The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of AstraZeneca’s motion to dismiss, holding that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) grants covered persons immunity from all claims for loss, including breach-of-contract damages, arising out of the administration of a covered countermeasure like a COVID-19 vaccine. The court determined that the statutory term “loss” encompasses any type of loss, not limited to tortious conduct, and that the PREP Act’s broad language immunizing “all claims for loss” is unambiguous. The court exercised jurisdiction under the collateral-order doctrine, finding that the denial of a statutory immunity from suit satisfies the requirement that the issue be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment because the right to avoid the burdens of litigation is a congressionally recognized substantial public interest. Regarding causation, the court applied a “but-for” standard, concluding that the administration of the vaccine was a necessary condition for Dressen’s breach-of-contract claim; without the injury caused by the vaccine, there would be no damages to recover, thus satisfying the statutory requirement that the loss have a causal relationship with the countermeasure. The court rejected arguments based on canons of construction, the absurdity doctrine, and constitutional avoidance, noting that Congress knew how to explicitly exclude contract claims from immunity (as it did in the PLCAA) but chose not to do so in the PREP Act. The case is remanded to the district court to determine whether AstraZeneca waived its statutory immunity through the language contained in the informed-consent form signed by Dressen, an issue the district court had previously reserved for later consideration. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.