Financial liability

A woman received a dose of a vaccine against Covid-19 and, two months later, she went to the emergency room with a very serious condition, a mesenteric thrombosis that required surgical intervention. She believed that this thrombosis was a consequence of the vaccination and filed a financial liability claim against the health administration. As she did not receive a response, the claim was considered dismissed by administrative silence .

She then went to court. The court partially ruled in her favor and recognized a compensation of 40, 000 euros. The Administration appealed, but the Superior Court of Justice upheld the sentence, relying on concepts such as the " principle of solidarity " and a type of risk-based liability linked to the vaccination campaign.

The matter reached the Supreme Court (SC), which had to clarify whether the adverse effects after being vaccinated generate financial liability and, where appropriate, to which Administration the damage can be attributed. The Supreme Court recalls that, for there to be liability, there must be an “unlawful” damage and a causal relationship with the operation of the public service. And, in healthcare, although an objective regime is mentioned, case law requires that there be a breach of the lex artis ( malpractice ) to consider the damage compensable since the Administration is not a universal insurer.

Furthermore, it emphasizes that vaccination was voluntary (although recommended) and had a clear individual benefit, so it is not appropriate to simply transfer the risks to the entire community through solidarity. There would only be liability if the damage resulted from an incorrect healthcare practice (for example, improper storage of the vial, administration against protocol, lack of diligence in monitoring, or violation of the lex artis ). If the adverse effect is a known risk , very rare, and there is no proven malpractice, the damage is not considered unlawful and the individual must bear it.

As in this case no malpractice was proven (according to the health inspection report), the Supreme Court upheld the appeal and overturned the compensation.