Login
AstraZeneca indemnity scheme is, legally, ‘not very clear’
The indemnity scheme meant to cover doctors if patients experience adverse effects due to the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine may be too vague, according to a compensation law expert.
Lauren Croft
Health practitioners who are found liable for any serious complications due to patients receiving COVID vaccines will be protected by the new indemnity scheme – which means that any compensation will be paid out by the Commonwealth of Australia.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
The government’s indemnity scheme follows concerns about blood clots in a small percentage of people vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine, which was originally recommended for only those 60 years and older.
After announcing that Australians of all ages could ask their GP for the AstraZeneca vaccine last week, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has stated that the new scheme “will provide confidence to medical practitioners to administer both AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines to Australians”.
Queensland compensation law practitioner Bruce Simmonds has welcomed the idea of indemnity in theory. The litigation director of Gold Coast-based law firm Parker Simmonds Solicitors & Lawyers is a strong advocate of COVID-19 vaccinations, but said it is too vague in its present form and more clarification is needed for the scheme to work in practicality.
He said someone who had experienced a significant adverse reaction from a vaccine “causing injury and economic loss” would have access to a no-fault claims process scheme.
“There is a qualification where they say indemnity is provided if the vaccine has been properly administered. If the vaccine is not properly administered then the medical practitioner is still liable,” he said.
Mr Simmonds added that if an adverse reaction did amount to a compensation claim, the plaintiff would need to jump through legal hoops in order to receive a payout.
“So would this scheme cover a GP who administers a wrong vaccine or the wrong dosage?” he added.
“What if no vaccination history is recorded by the GP? And does this scheme extend to pharmacies and nurses? It’s not very clear what this entails or the extent of the compensation available, but it’s a good start.”
GPs will also want an assurance the indemnity scheme also covers Pfizer or any other COVID vaccines that may be approved for use, according to Mr Simmonds.
“We need a vaccine compensation scheme, many other countries have them and their key feature is that they do not require an applicant to prove fault or negligence by the manufacturer or the medical system – they just need to show that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the injury or illness was caused by the vaccine,” he said.
“The government line is that the Australian no-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme will compensate individuals who have a vaccine injury following the correct administration of a registered vaccine. But the devil is in the details so we need to be clear in the definition of ‘the correct administration’ of a vaccine.”
